
Qass ^-^.^.^ //'=?7 
Book ■ 



d^^. 



r? 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



^be IFnternational 



XTbeolooical Xibrari^* 



EDITORS' PREFACE. 

Theology has made great and rapid advances in receni 
years. New lines of investigation have been opened up, 
fresh h'ght has been cast upon many subjects of the deepest 
interest, and the historical method has been applied with 
important results. This has prepared the way for a Library 
of Theological Science, and has created the demand for it. 
It has also made it at once opportune and practicable now 
to secure the services of specialists in the different depart- 
ments of Theology, and to associate them in an enterprise 
which will furnish a record of Theological *inquiry up to 
date. 

This Library is designed to cover the whole field of Chris- 
tian Theology. Each volume is to be complete in itself, 
while, at the same time, it will form part of a carefully 
planned whole. One of the Editors is to prepare a volume 
of Theological Encyclopaedia which will give the history 
and literature of each department, as well as of Theology 
as a whole. 

The Library is intended to form a series of Text-Books 
for Students of Theology. 

The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and compact- 
ness of statement. At the same time, they have in view 



EDITORS PREFACE. 

that large and increasing class of students, in other depart- 
ments of inquiry, who desire to have a systematic and thor- 
ough exposition of Theological Science. Technical matters 
will therefore be thrown into the form of notes, and the 
text will be made as readable and attractive as possible. 

The Library is international and interconfessional. It 
will be conducted in a catholic spirit, and in the interests 
of Theology as a science. 

Its. aim will be to give full and impartial statements both 
of the results of Theological Science and of the questions 
which are still at issue in the different departments. 

The Authors will be scholars of recognized reputation in 
the several branches of study assigned to them. They will 
be associated with each other and with the Editors in the 
effort to provide a series of volumes which may adequately 
represent the present condition of investigation, and indi- 
cate the way for further progress. 

CHARLES A. BRIGGS. 
STEWART D. F. SALMOND. 



Theological Encyclopagdia. By Charles A.Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., 

Professor of Biblical Theology, 

Union Theological Seminary, New 

York. 

An Introduction to the Litera- By S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., 

ture of the Old Testament. Regius Professor of Hebrew, and 

Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 
{Revised and enlarged edition.) 
Thef Study of the Old Testa- BytheRight Rev. Herbert Edward 
ment. . Ryle, D.D., Lord Bishop of Win- 

chester. 
Old Testament History. By Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., 

Professor of Biblical History, Am- 
herst College, Mass, [/« Press. 
Contemporary History of the By Francis Brown, D.D., LL.D., 
Old Testament. D.Litt., Professor of Hebrew, Union 

Theological Seminary, New York. 
Theology of the Old Testa- By the late A. B. Davidson, D.D., 
ment. LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, New 

College, Edinburgh. \_In Press, 



ZU 'inicxnatxond tUoioQicdi fetgrdrj. 



An Introduction to the Litera- 
ture of the New Testament. 

Canon and Text of the New 

Testament. 



The Life of Christ. 



A History of Christianity in 
the Apostolic Age. 



Contemporary History of the 
New Testament. 

Theology of the New Testa- 
ment. 



The Ancient Catholic Church. 
The Later Catholic Church. 
The Latin Church. 
History of Christian Doctrine. 

Christian Institutions. 

Philosophy of Religion. 
Apologetics. 

The Doctrine of God. 
The Doctrine of Salvation. 
Christian Ethics. 



The Christian Pastor and the 
Working Church. 

Rabbinical Literature. 



By S. D. F. Salmond, D.D,, Prin- 
cipal of the Free Church College, 
Aberdeen. 

By Caspar Rene Gregory, D.D,, 
LL.D., Professor of New Testa- 
ment Exegesis in the University of 
Leipzig. 

By William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., 
Lady Margaret Professor of Di- 
vinity, and Canon of Christ Church, 
Oxford. 

By Arthur C. McGiffert, D.D., 
Professor of Church History, 
Union Theological Seminary, New 
York. {A^otu ready.) 

By Frank C. Porter, Ph.D., Pro- 
fessor of Biblical Theology, Yale 
University, New Haven, Conn. 

By George B. Stevens, D.D., Pro- 
fessor of Systematic Theology, 
Yale University, New Haven, 
Conn. {Now ready.) 

By Robert Rainy, D.D., LL.D., 
Principal of the New College, 
Edinburgh. {Now ready.) 

By Robert Rainy, D.D., LL.D., 
Principal of the New College, 
Edinburgh. 

By the Right Rev. Archibald Rob- 
ertson, D.D., Lord Bishop of Exe- 
ter. 

By G. P. Fisher, D.D., LL.D., Pro- 
fessor of Ecclesiastical History, 
Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 
{Revised and enlarged edition) 

By A. V. G. Allen, D.D., Profes- 
sor of Ecclesiastical History, P. 
E. Divinity School, Cambridgr*, 
Mass. {Now ready.) 

By Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of Divinity in the Uni 
versity of Edinburgh. 

By the late A. B. Bruce, D.D., some- 
time Professor of New Testament 
Exegesis, Free Church College, 
Glasgow. {Revised and enlarged 
edition.) 

By WiLLi.AM N. Clarke, D.D., Pro- 
fessor of Systematic Theology, 
Hamilton Theological Seminary. 

By George D. Stevens, D.D., Pro- 
fessor of Systematic Theology, Yale 
University. 

By Newman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of 
Congregational Church, New Ha- 
ven. {Revised and enlarged editio7i.) 

By Washington Gladden, D.D., 
Pastor of Congregational Church, 
Columbus, Ohio. {Nfow ready.) 

By S. SCHECHTER, M.A., President 
of the Jewish Theological Seminary, 
New York City. 



tTbe Ifntetnational ZhcolOQlcnl Xtbrar^. 

EDITED BY 

CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., 

Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York ; 



STEWART D. F. SALMOND, D.D., 

Professor of Systematic Theology and New Testament Exegesis, 
Free Church College, Aberdeen. 



OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. 

By Prof. HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D. 



International Theological Library 



OLD TESTAMENT 



HISTORY 



BY 



HENEY PKESERVED SMITH, D.D. 

PROFESSOR or BIBLICAL HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION 
IN AMHERST COLLEGE 



NEW YORK 

CHARLES SCRIBNEE'S SONS 

1903 






THE LIBRARY Of 
CONGRESS, 

Two Copies Received 

SEP 18 1903 

y7C«pyncM Entry 

CLASS a^ XXa N«. 

COPY A. 



Copyright, 1903, by 
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 



Published, September, 1903 



TROW DIRECTORY 

PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY 

NEW YORK 



ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT 

IN MEMORY OF THE YEARS 
1888 TO 1893 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER 

I. The Sources . 

II. The Origins . 

III. The Patriarchs 

IV. Egypt and the Desert 
V. The Conquest 

VI. The Heroes 
VII. The Early Monarchy 
VIII. David 
IX. Solomon . 
X. From Jeroboam to Jehu 
XI. The House of Jehu 
XII. The Fall of Samaria 

XIII. Hezekiah and Manasseh 

XIV. JosiAH and his Sons 
XV. The Exile 

XVI. The Temple Rebuilt 

XVII. Nehemiah and After 

XVIII. The Greek Period 
XIX. A New Heroic Age 

XX. The Priest-Kings . 
Chronological Table 
Index of Subjects 
Index of Scripture Passages 



II 

35 
52 

87 
106 
129 
156 
177 
198 
219 
238 
260 
301 

344 
382 

413 
441 
470 

499 

503 
310 



PREFACE 

The purpose of the present volume is to put into narrative 
form the results of recent Old Testament study. The book might 
have been called a History of Israel ; but that title would indicate 
that the subject was treated in its relation to the general history of 
mankind, whereas for a series of theological handbooks it should 
be treated in its relation to our religion. From the beginning 
the Christian Church has assigned special importance to the body 
of writings which we call the Old Testament — Old Covenant 
would perhaps be a better title. To understand these writings is 
one of the first aims of theological study, and the endeavour to 
understand them has given rise to a number of separate sciences 
— Old Testament Introduction, Philology, Geography, Chronol- 
ogy, Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, and others. In 
our time it has become increasingly clear that no literature (and 
the Old Testament is first of all a literature) can be understood 
without tracing the process of growth by which it came into 
being. The immense critical labour that has been expended on 
the Old Testament of late years is motived by a desire to discover 
the stages of growth by which this literature became what it is. 

For the understanding of the literature we cannot stop with 
the investigation of purely literary questions. Criticism is a 
means to something beyond itself. The results of critical in- 
quiry must be brought into relation with each other by a con- 
structive reproduction of what has actually taken place in the 
past ; in other words, criticism must result in history before it 
can be considered complete. It follows that every new advance 
in criticism involves a rewriting of history. Otherwise it would 
be presumptuous to do again what has already been so often done 
before. As in what we call secular history new treatises are 

vii 



Vlll PREFACE 

poured from the press year by year, so it must be with Biblical 
and ecclesiastical history. No science is ever complete, and Bib- 
lical science is no exception to the rule. The new and in some 
respects startling results of recent Biblical science call for a new 
historical reconstruction. In recognising the necessity thus laid 
upon them, Old Testament students only put themselves in line 
with students in other branches of learning. Every other history 
is rewritten as often as the documents on which it is founded are 
seen in a new light ; Old Testament history cannot be an ex- 
ception. 

Minute and careful study of the Old Testament is no new 
thing ; it has been carried on in every age since the time of the 
Apostles. Especially in the Protestant Church during the seven- 
teenth century it was pursued with a thoroughness and devotion 
which are beyond praise. What distinguishes the work of our 
own day from that so laboriously carried on in earlier times is 
the new point of view. There was a time when, for theological 
study at least, the work of the critic consisted mainly in settling 
the meaning of each separate Biblical statement. Each dictum 
was then reckoned with in its isolation, as an authentic declaration 
of truth. In our day we find it impossible to content ourselves 
with this method of treatment. We cannot feel that we under- 
stand a Biblical statement when we know simply what it says. 
We are constantly going behind the word to the personality of 
the author ; we inquire concerning his times, his circumstances, 
his ideals, his relation to his predecessors, his place in the chain 
of development. As we do not fully assure ourselves that our 
own recollections mean what we think they mean unless we can 
bring them into harmonious relations 'Of time and space with 
other recollections, so it is with the traditions of the past — we 
must know not only what was at a certain date, but also how it 
is related to what came before and after. 

Historical criticism is simply the careful examination of the 
facts of tradition in order to bring them into harmonious relation. 
It has always been exercised by reflecting men when they endeav- 



PREFACE IX 

oured to ascertain what had taken place in earlier ages. It is 
only within recent times, however, that criticism has been de- 
veloped into a science. This is due partly to the increased 
systematisation of all branches of inquiry, partly to the discovery 
that all ancient documents must be subjected to the same process 
before they can be made to yield assured historical data. This 
necessity arises first from the constant intrusion of error in the 
process of transmission. The scribes to whom we owe the pres- 
ervation of all ancient books can make no claim to infaUibility. 
Mistakes in copying, in editing, in compiling, are liable to occur 
at every stage of the process of transmission. So far as our evi- 
dence concerning the past is contained in written documents it 
cannot be used until these mistakes are removed. Their removal 
is the object of textual criticism. For a long time scholars were 
not disposed to concede that the Old Testament was in need of 
textual criticism. For reasons which we easily understand, and 
which indeed command our sympathy, the Word of God (as the 
Bible was somewhat inexactly called) was supposed to be exempt 
from the ordinary tendencies of manuscript transmission. But 
at the present time the large majority of scholars find it necessary 
to examine the Old Testament text by the same methods which 
are applied to other ancient documents. It needs no demonstra- 
tion that the historian must be familiar with these methods, and 
that he cannot use the Old Testament text except as it has been 
subjected to them. 

The line between textual and historical criticism (the higher crit- 
icism as it is usually called) is not easily drawn, and indeed there 
isno sharp line of demarcation between them. The higher criticism 
is simply the process of examining and weighing the evidence in 
our hands. This evidence may be in the form of tradition, that 
is, documents which profess to tell us what has taken place, or 
in the form of monuments which indicate what has taken place 
without the direct purpose of describing it. Evidently a docu- 
ment which contains a tradition is also a monument of the time 
when the tradition took shape. Evidence concerning the past, 



X PREFACE 

whether direct (traditional) or circumstantial (monumental), 
must be interrogated before it can be used. For the danger of 
misapprehension is as constant a factor here as is the danger of cor- 
ruption in the case of manuscript transmission. To understand 
our tradition, to date and locate our monuments — this is the ob- 
ject of the higher criticism. As applied to the Bible it is the 
same science which is constantly used in examining other histori- 
cal documents. 

The beginnings of Biblical higher criticism may be traced to 
Ibn Ezra, to Spinoza, with more justice to Astruc, as the be- 
ginfiings of Biblical textual criticism may be traced to Cappel, 
Morin, and Simon. But it is only within the last forty years that 
both sciences have been recognised among English-speaking 
scholars. This period has been a period of conflict, but now the 
recognition of the validity of criticism in both kinds may be said 
to be complete. In the domain of the higher criticism the result 
has been to show the extraordinary complexity of the problems 
with which we have to deal. What we seek to do is to date the 
documents, analyse them where they are composite, estimate the 
personahty of the writers, and arrange the results into a consistent 
picture. The complexity of the material ought not to surprise 
us. The Bible is a book of edification, and a book of edification 
must be recast in order to meet the wants of an age different from 
the one for which it was first written. The Old Testament has 
gone through this process more than once ; what modern scholars 
seek to attain by notes and comments, ancient scribes sought to 
attain by insertions and changes in the text. These repeated 
modifications of the text — redactions, combinations, glosses — are 
the first object of the historian's interest, for they are the marks of 
the historical process which he seeks to reconstruct. It is the 
realisation of this fact which makes the Old Testament study of 
to-day so different from the Old Testament study of fifty years 
ago. 

It may be objected that if the problem be indeed so complex 
the historian should suspend his labours, and that he should not 



PREFACE XI 

write the history till the critical work is all done. But it is a mis- 
take to suppose that the constructive work can wait till the crit- 
icism is complete. The constructive work is itself necessary to the 
critic. If history is based on criticism, criticism is tested by history. 
Criticism dates the docmiients; history arranges the testimony of 
the documents according to the scheme presented by criticism. If 
the resulting picture is inharmonious, out of proportion, or unnat- 
ural, it becomes evident that the criticism has been incomplete or 
one-sided. The analysis of the critic must constantly be checked by 
the historian's synthesis. Moreover, the historical presentation is 
needed to guard the critic from too great subjectivity. His 
danger is that in the details of the critical examination he may 
forget the larger whole with which he has to deal. So far as there 
is any justification for the charge that the higher critics are nega- 
tive and destructive, it will be found in the fact that one and an- 
other has neglected to test his results by a positive combination 
of them in historic form. When the results are fairly tested by 
such a constructive use of them, they will be seen not only to 
further a correct appreciation of the individual documents or 
monuments, but also to give a more intelligible presentation of 
the whole subject with which they deal.^ 

As in all other history, so in Old Testament history, what in- 
terests us is the stream or movement of which the isolated facts 
are indications. In endeavouring to form a clear conception of 
this stream or movement, we are constantly compelled to lament 
the paucity of our materials. What we wish to reproduce is the 
process which extended over a thousand years, and we have as 

^ The most complete discussion of the relation between criticism and his- 
tory may be found in Bernheim, Lehrbiich der historischen Methode^ (1903). 
The lectures of Freeman, Methods of Hisioricnl Study, contain valuable 
hints, but fall far short of a systematic discussion. A suggestive little book 
is Droysen, Giindriss der Historik, published in English translation by E. 
Benjamin Andrews, Outline of the Principles of History (1893). On the 
progress of critical study as applied to the Bible (especially the Old Testa- 
ment) the reader should consult the preface to Driver, Introduction to the 
Literature of the Old Testament^^ (1902). 



Xll PREFACE 

its evidence fragments sufficient to fill only one moderate-sized 
volume. Additional and welcome light is given by the records 
of Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, and Persia. This light, however, 
does not prove what it is sometimes claimed to prove ; it does not 
show that Israel was merely a part (and an insignificant part) of 
those great empires, and therefore that it has no history of its 
own. The political insignificance of Israel may be readily ad- 
mitted. But the intellectual and spiritual life of Israel is a dis- 
tinct entity, standing out apart from the life of the surrounding 
nations. This life which has made so distinct a contribution to 
civilisation must be understood from its own monuments, and 
can be understood from this source alone. It can be so under- 
stood, and the paucity of the remains which have come down to 
us should not discourage us. Critical inquirers have sometimes 
fallen into an exaggerated scepticism, as though nothing could be 
certainly known concerning antiquity — was not the theory once 
propounded that all the Greek and Latin texts in our hands were 
forgeries of the monks in the Middle Age? But such scepticism 
is unwarranted; the documents in our hands, fragmentary though 
they be, are facts, and it ought to be possible to interpret their 
testimony. The footprint in the sand on Robinson Crusoe's 
island was a fragmentary monument indeed, but it gave evidence 
that was unmistakable, and it gave its interpreter many an uneasy 
hour because of the distinctness of its message. 

It is evident that no one man can perform all the labor of criti- 
cism and at the same time carry on all the hnes of investigation, 
archaeological, geographical, and chronological. The worker in 
this field is one out of many, each one of whom is eager to make 
use of the results already obtained in order to make further dis- 
coveries. The constructive worker is engaged in a process of 
selection; he must constantly ask himself which of the so-called 
results is reliably established, which is only probable, which is 
too uncertain to build upon. The first requisite of the historian, 
therefore, is soundness of judgment. It is, indeed, impossible to 
get along without hypotheses — our science is in line with other 



PREFACE Xlll 

sciences in this respect. But hypotheses differ widely among 
themselves. The ability to judge them soberly is of the first im- 
portance. 

The ideal historian, therefore (in my judgment), is the one 
who is able to distinguish degrees of probability. To this must 
be added the ability to tell what he knows. What the specialist 
knows, his readers have a right to know. They have a right to 
see the picture which he sees, and to see it in the way in which he 
sees it. It has already become clear to us that a historical picture 
is made up of probabilities. Some of these probabilities stand 
out with a distinctness which is practical certainty. That David 
reigned over Israel, that Isaiah preached in Jerusalem, that Judas 
Maccabeus fought against the Gentiles — these are things which I 
can affirm with as little reserve as I affirm that twice two is four. 
I have the right and it is my duty, in making a historical picture, 
to draw these figures upon my canvas as firmly and distinctly as I 
can draw them. But as we fill in the picture, we are conscious 
that many details must be less sharply outlined ; some are in the 
shadow so deeply that we barely make them out. The successful 
historian I take to be the one who is able to reproduce the lights 
and shadows so that his readers will be able to see the picture just 
as he sees it. To do this without the monotonous and irritating 
repetition of ''perhaps," *' probably," or 'Mt seems to me," is 
a matter of no little difficulty. Happy is the man who is able to 
feel that he has solved the problem with even a moderate degree 
of success. 

The interest in history is as old as the Bible itself, as old as 
the oldest parts of the Bible, in fact. For we find among the 
earliest documents in Hebrew literature the songs and stories 
which rehearse the righteous acts of Yahweh, or which celebrate 
the deeds of Israel's heroes. We must not confound this interest 
in history with the interest felt by the modern student. Interest 
in history as history is a matter of comparatively recent growth. 
The earliest authors or singers were under the influence of 
patriotic or religious enthusiasm. And yet it does not seem forced 



XIV PREFACE 

when we say that the ancient and the modern motives are not 
far apart. The ancient writer was sure that he was setting forth 
God's working for His people; the modern historian sets forth 
what has taken place in the hope of discovering the law of human 
progress. The latter is broader and more philosophical in his 
views ; the former is more distinctly didactic in his tone. But 
the underlying motives are not very different. The narrative 
which was compiled from Israel's folk-stories, and which now fills 
the first section of our Old Testament, shows a genuine historic 
and philosophic interest. It is interesting to note even in the 
Bible itself the tendency to rewrite history to meet the views of 
succeeding generations ; for the narrative of the earlier books 
was recast by the Chronicler to meet the needs of his own time. 
If criticism needed any justification it would find it in this prece- 
dent. 

The first attempt to write a history of Israel, made in post-Bib- 
lical times, was that of Josephus in his Antiquities. This author 
was, no doubt, moved by a desire to emulate the Greek and Latin 
historians with whose works he had become acquainted during his 
years of residence at Rome. But with this personal ambition 
there was a concurrent motive. The proud Jew was stung by the 
taunts levelled at his race by the anti-Semites of that day. He 
would answer them by showing that the career of Israel was no 
whit inferior in interest and importance to that of any other 
nation of antiquity. Josephus was not alone in this ambition. 
Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary of his, had the same ambition 
and wrote a history of the Hebrew kings from Moses to Agrippa. 
He was less fortunate than his rival, for his work early fell into 
oblivion.^ 

The Christian Church received the Old Testament from the 
Jews, first of all, as containing a divine revelation, and therefore 
as profitable for instruction in righteousness. It was for this rea- 

* The most complete bibliography of Josephus, with a characterisation of 
the man and of his different works, is that of Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiid- 
ischen Volkes^ {i()oi), I, pp. 74-106, On Justus of Tiberias, ibid.^ pp. 58-63. 



PREFACE XV 

son, and not with any distinctly historical interest, that these 
books were read in the public assemblies as well as studied in 
private. Still there was a vague notion of historic progress in 
the Christian distinction between the old dispensation and the 
new. We are not surprised to find a New Testament writer con- 
trasting the partial and fragmentary revelation of God in the 
prophets with the full revelation in Christ, and we recognise a 
real though rudimentary historic sense in such a contrast. But 
in the first centuries the historic interest was crowded out by 
others more pressing. On the one hand, the allegorical interpre- 
tation, already in vogue among the Jews, led to the search for 
mystical or theosophic revelations, and clouded the real historic 
meaning of the text. On the other hand, the attack made upon 
the Church by Jew and Gentile brought apologetics to the front, 
and emphasised philosophy rather than history. 

Still the apologetic need resulted after a time in turning atten- 
tion to history. The Greeks and Romans had their histories 
which were seen not to be in harmony with the scheme presented 
in the Biblical books. There was laid upon Christian writers 
much the same necessity which had been felt by Josephus ; they 
were challenged to reconcile the Scripture account of antiquity 
with those current among the Gentiles. They felt that they 
must, if possible, show the superiority of the sacred books. 
Julius African us is said first to have given attention to this mat- 
ter. The result was his Chronographia, in which the Hebrew 
data were combined with those of Gentile writers. This work 
has been described as a handbook of universal history on the basis 
of the Biblical narrative. It has perished, except fragments, but 
it was the model after which many histories of the world were 
shaped, and the fashion has continued almost down to our own 
time.^ Among the followers of Julius Africanus, the most im- 
portant is Eusebiusof Caesarea, who wrote a book entitled CJiroji- 
ica. This work avows its apologetic purpose on its first page. 

^ Details may be read in Wachsmuth, Einleitting in das Studiuin der 
alien Geschichte (1895), pp. 155-158. 



XVI PREFACE 

It gives parallel accounts of the history of the early ages, the 
Hebrew narrative (in outline) forming one section. The second 
part of the work is taken up with a chronological table, beginning 
with the time of Abraham. The author knows of the diver- 
gences between the Hebrew and Greek copies of the Penta- 
teuch and decides in favour of the Greek. ^ 

About the year 400 of our era, a compendious history of the 
world was written by Sulpicius Severus of Gaul.^ Although con- 
tinued down to the author's own times, this work might almost 
be called the first Biblical history. More than three-fourths of 
it are concerned with the Old Testament. The author dates 
the creation six thousand years before his own time, and follows 
closely the narrative of the Biblical books. His work is said 
to have been used as a text-book for the higher institutions of 
learning in the Netherlands, Germany, and France, as late as the 
seventeenth century. The sketch of Old Testament history 
given by Augustine, which may be mentioned in connexion with 
the work of Sulpicius, is a theological rather than a historical 
discussion.^ And, as is well known, Augustine was the leader of 
the Church for many generations. Mediaeval study of the 
Scriptures was not carried on to learn history but to discover sound 
doctrine — that is, to justify the teaching of the Church and its insti- 
tutions. Where the allegorical method prevails a real historical 
interest cannot assert itself. While the allegorical method suc- 
ceeded in confirming the theology of the Schoolmen, the literal 
interpretation of the Old Testament was admitted so far as it 

^The work has survived in an Armenian translation ; the second book 
also in the Latin translation of Jerome. A Latin version made from the 
Armenian (by Petermann) was published together with some Greek frag- 
ments and the Latin of Jerome, by Schoene, Eusebii Chronicoruin Libri 
Duo (1875). Cf. also the same author's critical discussion, Die Welichronik 
des Eusebius (1900). 

2 Sulpicii Severi Chronicorum Libri Duo in the Corpus Scriptorum Eccle- 
siasiicorum Latinorum (Vienna, 1866). 

'^ De Civitate Dei, XV-XVIIL The narrative is frequently interrupted by 
metaphysical disquisitions as well as by allegorical "improvements." 



PREFACE XVU 

confirmed the rights and prerogatives of the ecclesiastical orders. 
We should be wrong to suppose that the only motives for study 
of the Scripture were these : the Church always more or less dis- 
tinctly realised that it was called to teach. The Old Testament 
always had an immense practical interest ; it furnished texts, 
examples, and illustrations for the preacher. But we can hardly 
discover in either of these methods of treatment a really histor- 
ical interest. 

The Reformation emphasised the importance of the Scrip- 
tures as the sole authority in doctrine, and it discarded the alle- 
gorical interpretation. It revived the Pauline contrast of Law 
and Gospel, and to this extent quickened the historic sense. But 
the study of Scripture as authority still interfered with its study as 
a source of history, though the emphasis laid upon the literal sense 
contributed in the long run to a better historical apprehension. 

The full force of the Protestant position was felt in the seven- 
teenth century, when in conjunction with a renewed activity in 
all departments of literature the Bible received more exact and 
careful attention. The names of Cappel and Morin in textual 
criticism, of Hobbes, Spinoza, and Richard Simon in the higher 
criticism, belong in this century.^ With this critical activity 
we find more attention given to Biblical history, which, how- 
ever, is still treated as the introductory part of Church history. 
Of the seriousness with which the problems were attacked w^e 
have an evidence in Usher's discussion of Biblical chronology, 
as well as in his Annals. "-^ The latter work reproduces the data 
of the Biblical narrative in the order of time, beginning with the 
creation of the worl^ ''the evening before October 23 in the 
year 710 of the Julian Period," 4004 B.C. Each event is dated 

^ See the chapters on the higher criticism and on the history of Biblical 
History in Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture. 

'^ Annales Veteris Testamenti a prima Mundi Origine deducti una cum 
rertun Asiaticarzwt und ^gypticaruju Chronica, London, 1650, reprinted 
in the collected edition of his works (1847). The Chronologia Sacra may be 
found in volumes XI and XII of the §ame edition. 



XVlll PREFACE 

from this era of the creation. Thus the Deluge began in the year 
1656, Abraham was born 2008. The history of the world is 
divided into seven periods, of which six had elapsed at the birth 
of Christ. The author's theological interest is seen in his intro- 
duction of New Testament statements, hke the one in which Paul 
says (following Rabbinical tradition) that the rock from which 
water flowed in Horeb followed the people in their wanderings ; 
another example is the declaration that Joshua is a type of Christ 
and Canaan the type of the heavenly fatherland. In general, 
however, allegory is avoided. 

The historical interest of this work is seen in the introduction 
of Egyptian, Babylon, and other Gentile kings in their supposed 
proper place in the narrative. Thus, after the account of the 
exodus of Israel, we have Manetho's story of Egypt under Seso- 
this (Sesostris) ; in the year 2737 a.m. we have the statement of 
Herodotus concerning Ninus, the founder of the Assyrian empire. 
These citations from Gentile sources become more numerous later 
in the narrative, so that the work may be said, like the earlier 
ones already described, to give us universal history in a BibHcal 
framework. But it does this on the basis of a fresh study of the 
sources. 

The work of Usher, was, perhaps, the most important on this 
subject published between the Reformation and the year 1750. 
Others are mentioned by the bibliographers, some of which were 
sketches of Biblical history introductory to the history of the 
Church, others were theological and speculative rather than his- 
torical. As an example of the former class may be cited Span- 
heim's introduction to chronology and sacred history ; an example 
of the latter is Heidegger's " History of the Patriarchs." ^ The 
next century saw the '' Connexion " of Prideaux, which treated 
an important period of Old Testament history, and which still 

^ Spanheim, Introdnctio ad Chro7iologiam et Historiam Sacrajii (1694); 
Heidegger, De Historia Sacra Patriarcharum (1667). Other works of this 
period are catalogued by Diestel, Geschichte des Alien Testamentes in der 
Christlichen Kirche (1869), pp. 460-464. 



PREFACE XIX 

has value. The same year with Prideaux's work was published 
on the continent an ''Ecclesiastical History of the Old Testa- 
ment," by Buddeus, a well-known theologian.^ As the century 
advanced, the Deistic controversy gave occasion to re-examine 
many questions in Biblical history, though here again the pur- 
pose was primarily apologetic or polemic.-^ 

The modern period of Old Testament study may be said to 
date from Astruc's "Conjectures," published in 1753. The 
preceding literature may be described by the term theological, 
on the Deistic as well as on the orthodox side. Astruc marked 
an epoch (isolated forerunners have already been mentioned), 
because he turned attention afresh to the phenomena of the Bible 
itself, and showed how many of these had escaped attention. 
For the time being, this caused men to neglect Biblical history, 
for the critical process became all absorbing. At the same time 
philosophical and theological discussion became more active. 
French scepticism (Voltaire is the best example) on one side, 
and a new philosophy (Kant) on the other, gave the defenders of 
tradition all they could do. The result was to make the time a 
period of confusion and strife. But through the welter a more 
correct apprehension of the Old Testament gradually worked its 
way to the front. Eichhorn is the best example of real critical 
advance, while Herder pointed the way to a more sympathetic 
construction of Biblical history.^ 

* Prideaux, A Historical Connexion of the Old and New Testaments (1715). 
The work was primarily intended to cover the (supposed) period between 
the Old and New Testaments, but begins with the time of Ahaz. It sug- 
gested the less important work of Shuckford, The Sacred and Profane 
History of the World Connected (1727) which extends from the creation to 
the exodus. Buddeus, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti (1715) has 
gone through several editions. 

2 Although published a little later than the period we are discussing, I 
may mention here the most elaborate refutation of the Deistic objections to 
revelation: Lilienthal, Gate Sache der Gottlichen Offen ba rzing {i']6o-i']?>2) 
in sixteen volumes. 

3 Eichhorn, Einleitiing in das Alte Testament, 1780-83; the fourth edi- 



XX PREFACE 

In the nineteenth century the progress of our science is marked 
by two great names — Ewald and Wellhausen. Ewald's chief 
work^ contains an elaborate criticism of the sources, as well as 
a narrative of events and movements. At the very outset the 
author emphasises the necessity of distinguishing the story from its 
foundation, that is, of criticising the sources. Ewald's learning 
and acuteness are unquestioned. His work sometimes repels by 
its dogmatism, and, as we now know, its theory of the docu- 
ments is wrong. But, all things considered, it is one of the 
most influential works which the last century produced. Its re- 
sults were popularised in England and America by Dean Stan- 
ley's lectures on the history of the Jewish Church.^ Other 
histories by German scholars in this period are either based on 
critical hypotheses similar to those of Ewald, or else are anticrit- 
ical in their bias. Among the former may be mentioned Hitzig 
and Weber, as well as the early volumes of Gratz.^ Among the 
latter we may reckon Hengstenberg, Kurtz, and Kohler.* Eng- 

tion appeared in 1823. Herder, Aelteste Urkunde des Menschengeschlechts 
(1774); Geist der Hebrdischen Poesie (1782). Cf. Briggs, General Intro- 
duction to the Study of Holy Scripture (1899), chapter XI, Higher Criticism 
of the Hexateuch (1897), chapters III-VI. 

^ Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 7 vols., 1843 ff. The third edition 
appeared 1864-1868. An English translation of this edition was published 
1869-1883. The Old Testament History ends with Vol. IV of the German, 
Vol. V of the English ; the remaining volumes treat of New Testament times. 

"^History of the Jewish Church, 3 vols., 1863-1877. 

^ Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1869 ; Weber und Holtzmann, 
Geschichte des Volkes Israel und des Entstehung des Christentums, 2 vols., 
1867; Gratz, Geschichte der Juden, vols. 1-3, 1874. 

* Hengstenberg, Geschichte des Reiches Gottes unter dem alien Bunde, 
1870; Kurtz, Geschichte des Alten Bundes, 1848-1858; English transla- 
tion under the title, History of the Old Covenant, 1859. The work extends 
only to the exodus. Kohler's book, Biblische Geschichte des Alten Testa- 
ments (1875-1893), is valuable for its full bibliography. The author, though 
conservative in his predilections, was compelled, by his sense of fairness, to 
make considerable concessions to the critics in tfee course of his work. 
Other works are cited in Zockler, Handhiuh der Theologischen Wissen- 
schaften (1883), I, p. 263 f. 



PREFACE XXI 

lish Biblical scholarship was until recently almost wholly anti- 
critical. Proof may be found in the works of William Smith, 
Milman, and Edersheim/ 

A distinct epoch is marked by the publication of Wellhausen's 
Prolegomena^^ The views there advanced were not altogether 
new. Reuss had held (but not published) them as early as 1834, 
while Graf and Kuenen had come independently to the same con- 
clusions. But the briUiancy of Wellhausen's style, and the skill 
with which he marshalled his arguments, first showed the strength 
of the position which he maintained. This position was that the 
Law was not the starting-point but the culmination of Israel's 
development. The rapidity with which this thesis was accepted 
by Old Testament scholars was nothing less than revolutionary. 
Among English-speaking peoples the theory of Wellhaiisen was 
set forth by his article "Israel" in the Encyclopcedia Britan- 
nica, and by the lectures of W. Robertson Smith on the Old 
Testament in the Jewish Church,^ and on the Prophets of Israel. 
From the Wellhausenian point of view a number of histories of 
Israel have been published within the last twenty-five years, as 
well as a larger number of monographs dealing with particular 
epochs or with details of the critical inquiry. The following list 
is not absolutely complete, but contains the most important of 
the histories : 

Wellhausen himself has published an Israelitische und Judische 
Geschichte which may be supposed to represent the second vol- 

1 William Smith, Studenfs Old Testament History; Milman, History 
of the Jeivs, 3 vols, (second edition, 1863) ; Edersheim, History of Israel and 
Jtidah, 7 vols. (1887). 

2 The original title was Geschichte Israels, Band I (1878). The later 
editions bear the title, Frolego?nena zur Geschichte Israels. The work is 
published in an English translation in a volume (which contains also Well- 
hausen's article, "Israel," from the Encyclopcedia Britannica), entitled 
Prolegomena to the History of Is7'ael (no date). 

^ First delivered in Edinburgh and Glasgow in 1881 and published the 
same year; second edition, 1892. The Prophets of Israel followed in 1882; 
second edition, 1897. 



XXll PREFACE 

ume of the work of which the Frolego??iena was the first. This 
volume appeared in 1894, and has passed through several 
editions. 

Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1881-1888. The latter 
part of the history was written by Oskar Holtzmann. Next to 
Wellhausen's works this is the most important treatise which has 
yet appeared on the subject. It is enriched with maps, plans, 
fac-similes, and illustrations. 

Kuenen's works on the Religion of Israel and on the Prophets 
are in the domain of Biblical theology, but their historical bear- 
ings are important. 

Reuss, Geschichte der Heiligen Schrifte?! alien Testaments 
(1881) is nominally a history of the literature. In fact, it treats 
the history of the people and the history of the literature together 
in a suggestive and attractive manner. 

Renan, Histoire du Peuple d' Israel, 188 7-1 893; English 
translation 188 8- 1895. Renan 's brilhancy of style is well 
known. His critical point of view is nearer that of Ewald than 
that of Wellhausen. 

Kittel, Geschichte der Hebraer, 1888-189 2. Enghsh transla- 
tion, 'History of the Hebrews, 2 vols., 1895. This history ex- 
tends to the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar. The author 
gives a considerable part of his attention to the discussion of crit- 
ical questions, in which he agrees more nearly with Dillmann than 
with Wellhausen. 

Vernes, Precis d' Histoire Juive, 1889. The author gives a 
good sketch of Hebrew history, but expresses an exaggerated 
scepticism concerning the sources from which he draws. 

Winckler, Geschichte Israels, 2 vols., 1895 and 1900. The 
work is less a history of Israel than a series of ingenious conjec- 
tures on various points in the early history. 

Klostermann, Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis zur Restauration 
unter Esra tmd Nehemia, 1896. The author is known as one of the 
ablest among the (comparatively) conservative scholars in Ger- 
many. 



PREFACE XXlll 

Kent, History of th^ Hebrew People and History of the Jewish 
People, 4 vols., 1896-1900. The last volume is by Professor 
Riggs. The work is based upon a critical appreciation of the 
sources and is enriched by maps and chronological tables. 

Thomas, Geschichte des Alien Bundes, 1897. This is a work 
intended especially for teachers, and is written by one who is 
not ex professo an Old Testament scholar. The author is, how- 
ever, thoroughly familiar with the best critical literature, and 
succeeds in presenting the history of Israel in connexion with 
that of Egypt and the great Asiatic empires. The work extends 
to the fall of Jerusalem, a.d. 70. 

Pi epen bring, Histoire du Peuple d' Israel, 1898. This is the 
best presentation in French of the Wellhausenian reconstruction 
of the history of Israel. 

Cornill, History of the People of Israel, 1898. This is a series 
of ten papers prepared for the Open Court (Chicago). It is pub- 
lished also in German. 

Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1899. The English 
reader will form a good idea of the author's position by examin- 
ing his article '' Israel " in the Encyclopcedia Biblica, II. 

Lohr, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1900 — an outline in eight 
lectures. 

Paton, The Early History of Syria and Palestiiie, 1901. 
Though not strictly an Old Testament History, this book dis- 
cusses helpfully many questions which belong in our department. 

Ottley, A Short History of the Hebrews to the Poma?t Period, 
1 90 1. Maps, a brief sketch of critical positions, and a chrono- 
logical table add to the usefulness of this volume. 

Wade, Old Testatnent History (1901). The usefulness of this 
book is sufficiently evidenced by the fact that a second edition 
has just appeared (1903). It modestly claims that it is not in- 
tended for scholars, ''but for less advanced students." It is, 
however, thoroughly critical in its positions and method. 

The reader will not fail to note that the long silence of Eng- 
lish scholarship in the department of Old Testament History has 



XXIV PREFACE 

now been broken, and that the critical position is fairly estab- 
lished. 

With reference to the present work I have two remarks to 
make. The first is that for Hebrew proper names I have retained 
the form familiar to us in the English of the authorised version. 
The only exception is the divine name Yahweh, which seems to 
me in every way preferable to the \m-YiQhr3.\c Jehovah. 

My second remark concerns the literature of the subject. All 
branches of Old Testament science bear upon Old Testament 
history, and there is no book in any department which may not 
have something of value for the historian. It is plain that no 
one man can be familiar with this vast body of literature. My 
hope is that I have overlooked no work of real importance. 

In making references I have not usually taken into considera- 
tion other works on Old Testament History. The reader who 
wishes to study the subject thoroughly will consult the most im- 
portant of these. Where I have made references I have made 
them to works which treat some particular phase of the subject, 
or which will enable the reader to discover the grounds of that 
interpretation of a Biblical text which I have adopted. 

The current method of abbreviating titles (seen in the frequent 
recurrence of such enigmas as P R E, S B A W, Z D M G) must 
be annoying to the reader who is not familiar with the lit- 
erature. Even one who has some experience is frequently at a 
loss to interpret these symbols and is obliged to waste his time 
in consulting a table of abbreviations. However appropriate for 
an encyclopaedia such a system may be, I am convinced that for 
a work like the one before us the trifling amount of space saved 
should not be brought into the account against the convenience 
of the reader. I have therefore followed the example ofSchlirer, 
and in each case have given the title of the work which I cite 
with sufficient fulness to enable the reader to identify it at once. 

My colleague. Prof. John F. Genung, has read a considerable 
part of this work in manuscript; my friend. Prof. Irving F. 
Wood, of Smith College, has read the whole work in proof; 



PREFACE XXV 

and my son, Preserved Smith, Fellow of Colnmbia University, 
has also read a considerable part of it in proof. I am indebted 
to all these gentlemen for helpful suggestions, and it gives me 
pleasure here to express my thanks. 

Amherst, Mass., July 2S, igo^. 



OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 



CHAPTER I 

THE SOURCES 

The name Old Testament History is an inheritance from early 
theological science. All history was allowed to fall into the two 
divisions designated as Sact-ed d^xvA Profane. The former readily 
divided itself into the Biblical and Ecclesiastical sections, and 
the Biblical section as readily arranged itself under the heads 
Old Testament and New Testament. Of late years the distinc- 
tion between sacred and secular has become less marked. It is 
now felt that all history is sacred, because it is all the working 
out of the plan of God. What has been known as Old Testa- 
ment History now begins to appear under the title History of 
Israel. 

Whichever name we use, the discipline itself is of the first 
importance to every one who would understand the world or his 
own time. The little land of Palestine has had large influence 
upon the progress of mankind. The story of the people who 
dwelt there is more widely known than anything else that has 
come down to us from ancient times. In modern Europe, in 
America, among all nations that profess the Christian religion the 
names of Abraham, Moses, and David are household words. The 
same is true in Mohammedan countries. Israel has contributed to 
our civilisation the enduring and powerful element of religion. The 
literature of Israel has become a part of the Bible, and the Bible 
is the book of religion for the civilised world. But a literature 
cannot be understood without a knowledge of the people which 
gave it birth. The importance of a study of the history of Israel 
needs no further demonstration.^ 

* On the place of Old Testament History among the theological sciences 
cf. Briggs, General Introdtution to the Study of Holy Scripture, 1899, pp. 37, 
487 ff. 



2 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

In entering upon this study we are at once confronted by the 
fact that a large part of the Old Testament itself is historical in 
form. It would seem at first sight as if the historian had only to 
adopt what the sacred writers have already written down,, telling 
their story after them. The endeavour to do this would be at 
once hampered however by the fact that there is not one history 
to deal with, but that there are two. The books from Genesis 
to II Kings give an apparently continuous narrative from the 
Creation to the Exile. The Books of Chronicles, with their con- 
tinuation in Ezra and Nehemiah, begin at the same point and 
carry the story beyond the return from the Exile. Older schol- 
ars supposed it possible — indeed they were forced by their view 
of inspiration — to combine these two narratives in such a way as 
to retain all the data of both. It is now generally recognised 
that such a combination is impossible. The two histories present 
so many points of divergence that they can in no way be made 
to give a homogeneous account. 

But a further difficulty arises when the attempt is made .to do 
justice not only to these two histories but also to the rest of the 
literature which has come down to us from Hebrew antiquity. An 
important part of this literature preserves to us the works of the 
prophets. These preachers of righteousness have left on record 
their impressions of their own times, and have thus given us 
great light upon the history. It becomes necessary to make use 
of these documents along with those which are narrative in form. 
The same is true of the poetical and apocalyptic sections of the 
Old Testament. All are monuments of an historic process, and 
should fit into a connected whole. 

A successful presentation of this historic process is therefore 
dependent upon historical criticism. This science distinguishes 
the documents, analyses them if compound, shows their true na- 
ture, dates them, and leads to a correct estimate of their historic 
cort^nt. Old Testament history is therefore directly dependent 
upon the higher criticism of the Old Testament. The conclusions 
reached by the critic are the starting-point of the historian.^ 

^ The higher criticism of the Old Testament is thoroughly treated in 
Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,^ 1897. Com- 
pare also Briggs, General Introduction, Chapters XI and XII ; Wellhau- 
sen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, translated by Black and Menzies, 
Edinburgh, no date (the third edition of the German is dated 1886). 



THE SOURCES 3 

Critical study of the Old Testament books has made two things 
plainly, even startlingly, evident. The first is that scarcely one of 
these books can claim to be a homogeneous productio^u. The most 
of them are made up 6y a process of compilation out of previously 
existing material. This is known to be characteristic of large 
parts of ancient hterature. The Arab historians and commenta- 
tors freely excerpt what they please to take from their predeces- 
sors. Josephus in his history borrows in the same way both 
from documents now in our hands and from others that have 
perished. Within the bounds of a single book of the Old Testa- 
ment we must expect to find a variety of material, and we must 
learn to discriminate that which has the greater historical value. 
It will be evident that where an author has imbedded older 
material in his work, the older material may have a value quite 
different from that which he has given it. The very recognition 
of different strata in an historical book implies that some parts are 
more reliable than others. The historian must get as near as he 
can to contemporary accounts. In the inquiry as to what ac- 
tually took place at a given time, the most ancient testimony 
deserves the first attention. 

But besides the composite nature of the documents we must 
recognise another fact. The books of the Old Testament — even 
those which are historical in form — are not historical in the sense 
in which we use the word. The first aim of the authors was not 
to set forth the actual course of events, but to set the events in 
such a light as to point a moral. The books of the Old Testa- 
ment are books of devotion, or books of edification ; the purpose 
of the authors is didactic and hortative. It is in human nature 
to make sermons effective by painting their illustrations in vivid 
colours. And the colours which most distinctly affect us are 
those drawn from our own experience. To modernise the inci- 
dents which w^e draw from ancient history is almost necessary if 
we are to make our story profitable to our own times. Uncon- 
sciously but powerfully moved by this fact, the Hebrew historians 
used great freedom in treating the material which was in their 
possession. 

It may not be out of place to illustrate this tendency somewhat 
in detail. As has already been remarked, w^e have two narrative 
sections of the Old Testament which cover the same ground, one 
in the Books of Kings, the other in the Books of Chronicles. We 



4 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

cannot help asking ourselves why the Chronicler should rewrite 
the history of his people. Why should he not content himself 
with reading, copying, and circulating what had come down from 
the fathers? The plain answer to these questions is that he did 
not find the older history edifying. For one thing, there was 
much in it that was to him superfluous. He had no interest in 
that backsliding Kingdom of Israel, to which so much space was 
given in the older narrative. In addition he was scandalised by 
much that was there set forth. Why should people care to dwell 
upon such unpleasant things as David's adultery and the rebellion 
of his sons ? It would be better (he thought) to draw the veil of 
charity over the faults and misfortunes of Israel's great king. It 
would be more edifying to have the history without these 
shadows. And so the good man rewrote it without the shadows. 
He had no idea of casting doubt upon the older story, only he 
wanted a more edifying presentation. His omissions are thus 
easily accounted for. 

It is equally easy to account for the insertions. The Chron- 
icler lived in a time when the Priest-code ^ had become fully es- 
tablished as the law of the people. Now the peculiarity of the 
Priest-code is that it carries an elaborate ritual back to the times 
of Moses. The Chronicler adopted this view with all his heart. 
To him the whole ritual establishment had been organised in con- 
nexion with the Tabernacle and had come with Israel into the 
promised land. But if this were so the question arose : What be- 
came of it? The older historical books are evidently silent con- 
cerning it. This might be accounted for in the period of the Judges 
and in the period of Saul. Those were times of declension and 
of disintegration. But even when we come to David we find the 
same oppressive silence. The older narrative knows of only two 
priests at David's court, and ignores the Levites altogether. 
When David flees before Absalom, Zadok and Abiathar them- 
selves bring the Ark to David. Where was the great corps of 
Levites which ought to have borne the Ark and accompanied it 
as a guard of honour ? This question was only one of many 
similar ones that the Chronicler presumably asked himself.^ His 

1 On this document compare Driver, Introduction, pp. 126-159. 

2 The statements that David's sons were priests and that Ira the Jairite 
was a priest (II Sam, 8^^, 20^^) do not substantially relieve the difficulty 
felt by the Chronicler; they would rather increase his perplexity. 



THE SOURCES 5 

reply was to the effect that the older narrative, whatever its excel- 
lencies, was gravely deficient in many points. He therefore set to 
work to make it more complete, and this he did with a thorough- 
ness that commands our admiration. No sooner does his narra- 
tive bring the Ark to its new home in Jerusalem than he supplies 
it with an elaborate household, as we may fairly judge from the 
sixty-eight doorkeepers^ whose number is expressly given. A 
few years later we find David gathering the Levites together, and 
their number is given at thirty-eight thousand — all of them ma- 
ture men, qualified for the service of the sanctuary. David pro- 
ceeds at this time to organise them more completely, but it is 
evidently the mind of the author that they were already members 
of the sacred caste which had been set apart by Moses. Instead 
of the two priests of David's court we now find the house of 
Aaron numbering nearly four thousand adult males ^ and organised 
in twenty-four courses, only one of which is in service at any one 
time. The deficiencies of the earlier document have been thor- 
oughly supplied. Along with this, too, the desire to find in 
David a nursing father for the visible church is gratified by 
making him the reorganiser of the service and the founder of the 
music of the Temple. 

In the matter of the priesthood therefore we understand the 
motive of the Chronicler ; at the same time we discover that his 
work must not be called history. We shall do him wrong if we 
suppose him to be alone in his peculiar views. There is no 
doubt that he represents the whole tendency of his own time, and 
that the way had been prepared for him by a whole school of 
tradition. Not only the religion of the time was casting a glamour 
over the past; its patriotism was equally concerned. As the 
horizon of the Jews had widened when brought into the Persian 
and Greek periods their view of Israel's ancient history became 
exaggerated. David and Solomon, the heroes of the past, were 
now measured by the standards of Xerxes or Alexander. Their 
wealth becomes comparable to the wealth of Babylon. In re- 
writing the history of these Kings, therefore, the Chronicler finds 
the earlier data altogether too modest. When David gathered the 
warriors of Israel together, according to the earlier history, he 
found them to be thirty thousand in number. But when the 

*I Chr. i6^; notice also the choir of Levites already present, vv. *-'^. 
'According to I Chr. 12^' there are 3,700 who came to David at Hebron. 



6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Chronicler brings the bands of fighting men to David at Hebron, 
before his coronation, there are more than three hundred thou- 
sand.^ The author is equally lavish in other instances of num- 
bers, proving again that his narrative must not be called history. 
In fact it must be classed with the Jewish hterature which we call 
Midrash.^ 

The Midrash is a recognised form of later Jewish literature, 
which has arisen from the tendency we are considering — the ten- 
dency of the religious mind to modify historical material so as to 
make it serve for present edification. Examples of it are found 
in the pseudepi graphical books, as for example the Book of 
Jubilees. In this book the material of the canonical Genesis is 
rewritten to suit the taste of the times — the first century before 
Christ. Here the Mosaic institutions are antedated, because 
the devotees of the Law could not suppose that Abraham did 
not live by the most perfect rule of life. The freedom with 
which Josephus and Philo fill out the Biblical biographies is an 
example of the same tendency ; and indeed modern sermons are 
in no wise slow to paint the lives of Abraham and Moses and 
David with colours drawn from legend or from the preacher's im- 
agination. It is not without significance that the Chronicler 
names among his sources a Midrash of the prophet Iddo, and a 
Midrash of the Book of Kings.^ His whole book could not be 
better described than by the title A Midrash of the Book of Kings. 

So strong is this tendency that it is discoverable in other parts 
of the Old Testament. The critical analysis of the earlier his- 
torical books shows that the authors of some of the documents 
were aiming to prove a thesis. The editor of Judges avows his 

1 I Chr. 12 23-37_ The total appears to be 340,600, besides 222 captains 
whose soldiers are not enumerated. The earlier account is II Sam. 6 ^ 

2 The nature of the Book of Chronicles was first distinctly set forth by 
De Wette in his Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, I, Halle, 
1806. Wellhausen makes a clear and convincing statement in his Prolego- 
mena^^ pp. 175-235; History of Israel, pp. 171-222. The reader may also 
consult Driver, Introduction'^, pp. 516-554, and the articles in Hastings, 
Dictionary of the Bible (by Professor Francis Brown) and in the Ency- 
clop(edia Biblica. 

^11 Chr. 13 2^^, 24 2". On the subject of Midrash cf. Schlirer, Geschichte 
des Judischen Volkes^, II, pp. 327, 338-350; Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vor- 
tnige"^ i8q2, pp. 13, 37. Considerable portions of the later Jewish Mid- 
rash are translated by Wunsche, Bibliotheca Rabbinica, Leipzig, 1880, and 
later. 



THE SOURCES 7 

aim in the very distinct statement which he makes concerning the 
lesson of his history. The stories of the ancient heroes which he 
recites are fitted by him into a framework in which they did not 
originally belong, and in which some of them at least are made 
to teach a lesson wholly foreign to the intent of their original au- 
thor. In the Fi^t Book of Samuel we have a particularly glar- 
ing instance of two contradictory points of view urged by differ- 
ent sections of the narrative. The older document made the 
anointing of Saul an act of grace, a manifestation of Yahweh's 
favour toward Israel. A later writer had a very different view 
of the monarchy and he enforced it by his version of the story. 
According to him the demand for a King was the act of an un- 
ruly and backslidden people. Samuel acceded to the demand 
only under protest, and the divine purpose was to punish the peo- 
ple by the very King whom they desire. This second account 
is a ^e^vriting of the older one. All that is new in it is the point 
of view. Its interest is not in the history but in the moral it can 
be made to teach. ^ That the latest redactor of the Books of 
Kings has the same interest, is evident from the judgment which 
he so constantly pronounces on the men and events of which he 
writes. 

It is necessary for the modern historian to make constant al- 
lowance for these tendencies. The result is undoubtedly a 
serious modification, and in many cases a reversal of the state- 
ments which the Biblical historians have made. This is not sur- 
prising. The authors who gave final form to the Biblical history 
were remote from the events which they described. They were 
under the impression of a powerful judgment of God in the de- 
struction of Jerusalem and the exile of their people. It was in- 
evitable that they should look upon the whole past of their nation 
as a perpetual backsliding. As we ourselves know, grave imper- 
fections are seen in the civilisation of earlier ages, when it is 
measured by a modern standard. The Biblical writers easily 
saw the imperfections of their predecessors, and had not the 
breadth of view rightly to make allowance for them. Hence the 
pessimism of their histories, a pessimism that was exaggerated by 

* The composite nature of these historical books is pointed out in the re- 
cent commentaries, that of Moore on Judges, my own on Samuel (both in the 
Internatio7ial Critical Commentary), and those in Marti Kurzer Handkom- 
mentar, and Nowack Handkommentar. 



8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

their view of a more remote past. For along with a severe judg- 
ment of our immediate ancestors there often goes a tendency to 
glorify those more remote. An American may in the same 
breath condemn the statesmen of the middle of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, while praising the revolutionary fathers in unstinted terms. 
So the sacred historian condemns the whole people from the time 
of the conquest down, while idealising the Patriarchs. In both 
respects it is necessary for us to make allowance for the point of 
view. 

The extent to which this pessimistic tendency has taken posses- 
sion of our minds as we look at the Biblical story can hardly be 
overstated. Although, according to one story, God created all 
things very good, the fall of man which follows effaces the primi- 
tive goodness and infects soil and man with a curse. The first 
age of the world ends in a corruption so universal that it must be 
wiped out by the Deluge. In the succeeding generations the 
character of Abraham alone is worthy of our respect. His pure 
and lofty monotheism passes on to Isaac and Jacob, though the 
family of Jacob already show signs of degeneracy. But Moses is 
sent to a stiff-necked people, as appears throughout the Exodus 
and the Wandering. A brief brightness shines in the career of 
Joshua. But as soon as he is gone the incorrigible depravity of 
the people comes into view. Each of the Judges is leader of a re- 
vival which comes after a period of deep and inexcusable back- 
sliding. The establishment of the monarchy is only a glaring 
instance of the perversity of the people. David indeed redeems 
the institution from the curse under which we suspect it to 
labour. But after David the degeneracy again shows itself. The 
rebellion of the ten tribes, the preservation of the High-places, 
the political moves of the various monarchs — all teach the same 
lesson. The climax is reached in the fall of Jerusalem, which is 
God's final and emphatic curse on ages of rebellion. 

The justification for the modern historian who modifies this 
picture or even contradicts it, is in the fact already mentioned 
that this is the view of the latest time, and that if we disentangle 
the documents some of them at least will tell a very different 
story. Whatever the total result, the serious historian will give 
all the documents the weight which belongs to them. The en- 
deavour to harmonise them so that they will agree in the lesson 
they teach brings us at once into difficulty. If, as one document 



THE SOURCES 9 

affirms, David had a Teraphim (an idolatrous image) in his 
house, and if, as another document asserts, the law against idola- 
try was promulgated before the time of David, we are in a hope- 
less muddle ; for all the documents agree that David was obedi- 
ent to the will of God. The difficulty is with the document 
which has antedated the giving of the law, and we should frankly 
recognise this. A parallel casein the life of Gideon will meet us 
in our later investigation. 

The obvious lesson from what has been said is that the student 
must first concern himself with the history of tradition. He 
must clearly distinguish the different documents which have been 
wrought into the Biblical text, and be able to give each one its 
approximate date. The testimony of each one must then be 
taken for the period in which it belongs, for it is evident that 
its primary value is here. The Chronicler has no independent 
value for the history of David ; but for the history of his own 
generation his work is priceless. The success of the historian 
depends upon getting at what each author has to reveal concern- 
ing his own time. Nor is it necessary to lay much stress upon 
the charge that the historian in trying to date his documents 
is moved by an evolutionary bias. Progress there must be in all 
history, or it would not be history. It need not be difficult 
for the Old Testament historian to determine questions of early 
or late without being under a bias of any kind.^ 

In the history of tradition we must include those books of the 
Old Testament which are not distinctively historical. How great 
importance these prophetical and poetical books have for the 
history of their times must be evident. But it is also evident 
that we cannot take them for what the Jewish editors supposed 
them to be until we have verified their claims. The various ele- 
ments which go to make up the Book of Isaiah, for example, must 
be examined and dated before they are used for historical pur- 
poses. In such cases the historian works hand in hand with the 
literary critic, or freely avails himself of his predecessor's results. 

^ A thorough discussion of the tradition as a preliminary to a history 
of Israel was made by Ewald in his Geschichte des Volkes Israel (third edi- 
tion in seven volumes, 1864-1868, English Translation, 6 vols., 1869-1883). 
Unfortunately Ewald was wrong in his theory of the order of the docu- 
ments. His error was corrected by Wellhausen in his Geschichte Israels, I 
(later editions bear the title Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels). Notice 
also Winckler's statement in Kcilinschriften und Altes Testament^, p. 208. 



lO OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Having got at the history of tradition we may inquire for the 
facts which lie behind the tradition. In this inquiry we are often 
obliged to confess our ignorance. What actually happened at a 
given epoch is eternally concealed from us where (as is so often 
the case) the documents are lacking. Nevertheless we have 
reason to feel that the main outlines are reasonably clear. In 
the endeavour to trace them, we shall follow the course laid down 
by the Old Testament itself. 



CHAPTER II 

THE ORIGINS 

The Hebrew narrative books as they are now in our hands 
have a well-defined scheme of history. The Book of Genesis 
begins with the creation of the world, and gives a chronological 
outline of the first period, which ends with the Deluge. A fresh 
start is made with Noah, the second father of the race. In this 
period the whole race of mankind is grouped genealogically, and, 
as it appears, geographically; the three zones of the known world 
being assigned to the three sons of Noah and their descendants. 
Attention is then directed to x\braham, one of the descendants of 
Shem. This is because he is the father of the group of peoples 
to which Israel belongs. In the family of Abraham we are intro- 
duced to Ishmael and Isaac. But Ishmael is dismissed from the 
record with a mere genealogy, that we may devote ourselves to 
Isaac and his line. The two sons of Isaac are brought before us 
in the same way, and a genealogical account of the clans of Esau 
is given before they in turn are dismissed, that we may give exclu- 
sive attention to Jacob and his sons. These are the main sub- 
jects of the narrative, up to which the rest has skilfully led. 

It is necessary for us to note however that this plan of history, 
which leaves nothing to be desired in point of completeness, is 
due to the latest of the authors who have been concerned in the 
composition of Genesis. These numbers and genealogies are the 
work of the Priestly author, who wrote certainly after the year 
500 B.C. In accordance with the spirit of his time which 
delighted in genealogical tables — as we see abundantly illustrated 
in the Books of Chronicles written a little later — he brought the 
whole early history into tabular form. The divisions of his his- 
tory are in fact entitled genealogies. Even the sketch of the 
Creation has the subscription " This is the Book of Genealogy of 
Heaven and Earth, "^ and similar titles stand at the head of the 
other divisions of his work. 

^ A slight alteration of the received text is here accepted, as made by Ball, 
The Book of Genesis, in Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old Testajnent (1896). 

II 



12 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

On account of this formal and schematic character of the work 
of P', this work was made the basis of the composite book before 
us ; for it is evident that two very different hands have been at 
work in the account of the Creation. The writer of the cold and 
dignified narrative in Genesis 1^-2*^ could not have written the 
brilHant and imaginative sketch which runs through the second, 
third, and fourth chapters of the book. In this latter, which 
is evidently the more primitive account, Yahweh '^ is naively 
human. He experiments with His creation. He shapes man 
out of clay ; then having given him life He forms the other 
animals to see whether they will be fit companions of man. Only 
when He sees that none of these meets the exigency does He fall 
upon the device of taking a part of the man himself to make into 
a woman. Furthermore, he plants a garden in the East, in which 
He Himself dwells. He places the man in it as His gardener to 
till it and to guard it. As He takes His evening walk there, He 
discovers man's guilt by his behaviour — of any exercise of 
omniscience there is no question. He expels man from the garden 
because he has become dangerously like a divine being. All this 
is very dehghtful and very primitive. 

It does not seem venturesome to declare that this cosmology is 
different from the other in that it took its origin in the desert. 
It begins by declaring that in the day when Yahweh made 
heaven and earth, there was no bush of the field on the earth, and 
no grass had sprung up, because Yahweh had not rained on the 
earth, and there was no man to till the ground. In the desert, 
herbage springs up after the rain, and the tilled ground is ground 
that has been reclaimed from the waste by the man who carefully 
husbands its water-supply. This is in contrast with the other 

^ So we will designate the Priestly writer, in accordance with now common 
usage. The other writers of the Hexateuch are J (the Vahwist, from his 
use of the divine name Yahtveh), E (the Elohist, from his preference for 
Elohim as the name of God), and D (the author of Deuteronomy). As J 
shows a marked interest in the history of Judah he is sometimes called the 
Judaic writer, and E, by contrast, is the Ephraimitic. A very full discussion 
of the nature of the documents is given by Carpenter and Battersby, The 
Hexateuch I, 1900 ; cf. also Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, 
1897. 

2 It seems better to use this, which is the Hebrew name for God, than to 
take a more general and less definite word. The orthography is intended to 
represent what was probably the original pronunciation- See the new 
Hebrew Lexicon B D B, sub voce. 



THE ORIGINS I3 

conception, according to which the primeval chaos was the pri- 
meval ocean, or the primeval mud, from which the water must be 
drained into the great subterranean reservoir before the dry land 
could appear. 

The creation story of the Yahwist cannot be correctly esti- 
mated without considering the other legendary or mythological 
material of his narrative. Leaving out of view the Deluge, which 
possibly did not belong in the earliest form of J, we may look at 
his story of the Confusion of Tongues. Here we see clearly 
that he has the intention to account for the present state of man- 
kind in contrast with a primitive state which was quite different. 
If all our race be descended from a single pair, how do they 
come to speak so many languages ? This is a question which was 
forced upon him by what he saw of the actual condition of man- 
kind. And in answering this question he used the story of a 
tower and an etymology, neither of which originally had any 
connexion with what they now set forth.^ Our author is a phi- 
losopher ; he is interested in accounting for the present state of 
things. This story accounts for the awkward variety of languages 
spoken by mankind. The Deity devised it to check the too 
great power of mankind. Now we understand the earlier narra- 
tive. Precisely as the story of the Confusion accounts for the 
present variety of speech, so does the story of the Fall account 
for the present toilsome lot of the labourer. The toil of the peas- 
ant is far more exacting than we should expect for the man who 
was created to keep the garden of Yahweh. The earth, as we 
now see it, has a constant tendency to thorns and briers. This 
must be because Yahweh was obliged to keep man in check. 
He had aspired too high, had almost become like God. Equally 
strange with the ceaseless toil of man is the painful parturition of 
woman when compared with the easy travail of the animals. It 
w^as an ingenious speculation which solved both these problems 
and at the same time accounted for the anomalous life of the ser- 
pent, by the story of the temptation and fall of man. 

This same account gives us a glimpse into primitive mythol- 
ogy by its treatment of the serpent as one of the characters in 
the drama. We have no difficulty in recognising in him some- 

* It is scarcely necessary to remark that our appreciation of the author is 
not affected by his etymology of the name Babel — an etymology which is 
impossible. The passage is Gen. 1 1 '-'. 



14 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

thing more than an animal. But the reason is that to the writer 
all animals were something more than animals as we view them. 
To primitive man — to man far beyond the primitive stage in 
fact — all animals have something demonic about them. Not that 
the serpent is the fallen angel of Milton's poem, or the Satan of 
the New Testament. He is simply a jin?iee, a fairy if you will, 
possessed of more knowledge than the other animals, but otherwise 
like them. Diabolical envy or malice cannot be ascribed to him. 
He counsels man to eat of the fruit bona fide, because he knows 
that man will be raised toward the life of the gods by eating. He 
has not wit enough to foresee that Yahweh will resent the invasion 
of His prerogatives, nor has he strength or cunning to resist the 
sentence pronounced upon him for his meddling.^ 

The material which J embodied in his narrative is properly 
described by the term mythological. If this is not evident from 
what has been said it will come into view when we consider a 
section which we have not yet studied. This is the account of 
the marriage of the Sons of God with the daughters of men.'^ 

The little section reads as follows: 

"And when men began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born 
to them, the Sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair, and they 
took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. Then Yahweh said. 
My spirit shall not continue in man forever on account of their erring. He 
is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." 

In considering this obscure passage some things are not ob- 
scure. The first is that the Sons of God, which are mentioned in 
such distinct contrast with the daughters of men, must be beings 
of another order. When me?t began to multiply then the afigels 
were enticed — this is the only proper antithesis. And with this 
interpretation agrees Biblical usage in the few cases in which 
the Sons of God are mentioned.^ There is no other way in 

^ The character of the serpent as a demonic being is sufficiently evident 
in the most diverse mythologies. The brazen serpent worshipped at Jerusa- 
lem till the time of Hezekiah is evidence for the view of the Hebrews, II 
Kings i8 *. 

^ Gen. 6 '-*. The paragraph presents palpable difficulties to the translator, 
and has been the subject of almost endless discussion. The student may read 
with profit Budde, Die Biblische Urgeschichte {\^?)^), and in opposition to some 
of Budde's positions Gruppe, in the Zeitschriftfiir die Alttest. IVissenschaft, 
1889, p. 135 ff.; among the commentaries Dillmann (Eng. Transl. 1897) 
gives a good view of the state of the inquiry. 

sjob, 16, 2', 38^; cf. Ps. 29', 89^^61 and Dan. 3^^ 



THE ORIGINS 1 5 

which we can do justice to this passage with its use of the 
generic word mart. It follows that we have here to do with the 
marriage of the jinn (to use the Arab word once more) with 
human beings. So the passage was interpreted by later Juda- 
ism and by the early Christians/ whose fully developed angel- 
ology was able to make use of it to account for the origin of sin. 
Our author has a less definite conception of the superhuman 
beings concerned in the transaction than had the Fathers of the 
Church, but that they are superhuman and in the class to which 
Yahweh belongs, seems quite clear. 

The difference between this early writer and the later ones 
to which I have alluded, is that he knows nothing of a condemna- 
tion of the angels. He does not call their conduct sinful. Nor 
indeed does he condemn the human beings involved. All that 
we discover in his account is that Yahweh is displeased. And 
the reason that Yahweh is displeased is that by the conduct of 
the angels His spirit is brought into human bodies. This implies 
a dangerous increase in the power of mankind. The danger is 
met by the decree that the duration of man upon earth shall be 
comparatively brief. It is the prevention of immortality which 
is the chief concern, as was the case in setting a guard over the 
tree of life. 

In similar stories in other mythologies we find an assault made 
by the inferior gods upon the throne of the Creator. It is natu- 
ral to suppose that something of the kind was in the original 
from which our author drew, because he takes pains to bring 
in a reference to the giants, offspring of the celestial marriages. 
On the other hand, the absence of any condemnation of the 
angels argues against such a supposition. The mention of the 
giants is simply a piece of tradition which attached itself natu- 
rally to the text. Gigantic races were thought to have dwelt in 
Palestine before the coming of the Hebrews.^ Mighty men like 
Nimrod had left a name to succeeding generations. Founders of 
cities or empires were worshipped as gods by many peoples. The 
Hebrew could not make them gods, for that was contrary to the 

^ For example, Josephus, y^«//^«/VzVj-, 1,3, i; Enoch, 6^ 7^ 86^^; Jubi- 
lees, 5 ^-^ ; Sulpicius Severus, Chronica^ 2^ Cf. also Eisenmenger's Ent- 
decktes Jtidenthuni, I, p. 380. 

^ Num. 
our passage; Budde, UrgeschichU, p. 391. 



l6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

genius of his religion. But it was natural for him to find some- 
thing superhuman in men who filled the earth with the terror of 
their name. The Biblical account does not condemn these heroes 
or tyrants; they have always been, in fact, the objects of admira- 
tion as truly as of terror. What our author is trying to do is to 
account for them and at the same time to account for the brevity 
of human life. 

Enough has been said to show that we have here a piece of 
genuine mythology. And this characterisation extends to the 
whole of J's material for this period — it is mythological but 
not polytheistic. That he has preserved only fragments of what 
circulated in his time is evident.^ What he preserved he was 
able to bring into harmony with the strictest monotheism. For 
the Yahweh of our account, anthropomorphic as He is, is yet 
the supreme God. No other is brought into rivalry with Him. 
And we may say also that He remains worthy of our reverence 
2ven in the primitive stories we have considered. 

What we have found out for our Old Testament history is that 
this part of J contains nothing that can be called historical in 
the proper sense of the word. The importance which the story 
of the fall of man has had in the history of thought is known to 
everyone. But consideration of this phase of the subject belongs 
to the history of philosophy. It should be remarked that the in- 
fluence it exercised did not begin till after the completion of the 
Old Testament canon. There is not one indication that the 
Prophets of Israel ever gave a thought to the speculations which 
the Yahwist has clothed for us in these attractive stories. 

With this negative result in mind we turn again to the later 
narrative, that of P, which, as already remarked, furnished the 
framework into which the stories of J have been fitted. In form 
this document is strictly historical. It sets before us the crea- 
tive work in its parts, orderly arranged in seven days. It then 
gives a genealogy which is also a chronology, naming the year 
in which each of the ten antediluvian patriarchs received a first- 
born son. We are thus brought to the Flood, which closes this 
period of the history and leaves only Noah to become the new 
head of the race. 

It is hardly necessary to ask whether this author, living at a 

^ Other creation myths circulated in Israel down to a comparatively late 
date, as is shown by Gunkel, Commentar zum Buche Genesis (1901) p. 29 flf. 



THE ORIGINS 1/ 

comparatively late date, had such definite and precise informa- 
tion concerning the early ages of the world. Such information 
might conceivably have come to him by special revelation/ but 
he seems to make no claim to have received it thus. As we know 
by his method elsewhere, he was generally dependent upon older 
written sources, which, however, he freely recast to meet the 
views of his own time. This creates a probability that here also 
he is similarly dependent. Moreover we should be puzzled to 
account for a special revelation of so early an event delivered at 
so late a date. If exact knowledge of the process of creation and 
of the longevity of the antediluvians was necessary for Israel's 
education in piety, it should have been given much earlier. All 
the probabilities, therefore, are against this account being histori- 
cal, in the natural sense of that word. 

In comparing the account of the creation now before us with 
the account in the other document, we are at once struck with 
the difference in tone and in the point of view. In P God is 
transcendent. He no longer shapes His men and animals out of 
clay; He does not even breathe into their nostrils; He does not 
plant a garden or walk therein. He speaks and it is done ; He 
commands and it stands fast. All that is necessary is that He 
should say let there be tight and the light is there ; let there be 
a firmament and the firmament comes into being. He does not 
experiment with His material ; each class of creatures comes into 
being according to a progressive scheme, each is conformed to 
a type, each is ''according to its species," and each is pro- 
nounced very good at once. Mythological features are not found. 
The garden, the tree of life, the separate formation of wo- 
man, tiie serpent as the tempter — all these have disappeared. 
Moreover the order of creation is reversed. It is no longer man 
and then the animals ; it is first inanimate nature, then the plants, 
then the lower animals, the higher animals, finally man as the crown 
of creation. This is an ordered, one might properly say a scien- 
tific, representation. In the account of the creation of man we 
might find a relic of the older anthropomorphism, for there God 

^ The theory that we have here a special revelation designed to show us 
the actual process of creation is still held by some scholars, or was until 
within a few years ; cf. Kohler Biblische Geschichte des Alien Testametits, 
I, p. 22 IT. Of the enormous difficulties which such a theory meets in the 
opposition of geology, biology, and astronomy it is needless to speak. 



l8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

says let us make via7i in our ow?t image. No doubt the author, 
in accord with the great prophets of Israel, conceived God as 
existing in human form. But his motive here is to emphasise 
the supremacy of man over other created beings, a supremacy 
that is indicated by his creation in the divine image. Man 
rules over the lower animals because he is like God, and be- 
cause he has received the divine commission to subdue the 
earth. ^ Finally an entirely new feature appears in this account, 
for the creative work is arranged in a creative week, as a founda- 
tion for the religious institution of the Sabbath. 

These striking differences show that our author rewrote the 
account of the creation to suit the advanced theology of his own 
times. He had lost appreciation of the anthropomorphic Yah- 
weh of the earlier time. It is probable that he had lost appre- 
ciation of his predecessor's whole philosophy. To him the hard 
lot of the peasant was not traceable to a primeval curse. To 
him it seemed necessary that a good God should make every- 
thing good. None the less he believed in a degeneracy of the 
race which brought punishment in the shape of a Deluge, But 
this was a gradual decadence extending through the antedilu- 
vian period. 

It has become certain of late years that P was influenced in his 
account of the creation by Babylonian conceptions. The most 
distinct evidence of this is his use of the word Tehom for the 
primeval abyss. This word is the Babylonian Tiamat, the monster 
inimical to the gods whose body furnishes the material of the visi- 
ble universe. But, as compared with the Babylonian account, the 
part played by the Tehom in the creation is insignificant. The 
Babylonian account is mythological in a high degree ; it swarms 
with gods, demigods, monsters. The Biblical account has been 
divested of all mythological features. Nevertheless we may be 
sure that the Babylonian influence is present. In contrast with the 
story of J which makes the desert the type of the original chaos, 
we find in P that the earliest of all things is the ocean, or rather 
the primeval slime from which water and dry land are separated 
by the divine fiat. This is in accordance with the Babylonian 

^ According to the Chaldean mythology men are intelligent because 
made (in part) of the blood of Bel. Cf. Zimmern, Biblische ttnd Babylon- 
ische Urgeschichte, p. 14. The example shows how far removed our author 
is from such crude speculations. 



THE ORIGINS I9 

conception where Ocean and Tianiat mingle their waters at the 
beginning of all things. 

It is hardly to be supposed that so strict a Jew as the Priestly- 
author was, would borrow directly from Babylonian mythology, 
for this would be an abomination to him. But we know that 
Babylonian influences had reached Palestine at a very early day. 
Doubtless the cosmology had passed into Hebrew thought and 
been modified long before our author put his story into shape. 
Phoenician literature shows something analogous.^ 

The curious reader may ask why if this author is so anxious to 
represent his God as thoroughly transcendent, he should leave so 
palpable an anthropomorphism as that contained in the sentence: 
Let us make man in our image. For it will be held that here 
are traces of other heavenly powers with whom God consults 
before carrying out His design. In reply it is only necessary to 
notice that in the post-exilic period, in which P belongs, the 
doctrine of angels was already well developed. Elohim was 
indeed transcendent. But He had a heavenly court made up of 
these high officials, with whom it was seemly for Him to take 
counsel in any matter of importance. It is only to mark the im- 
portance of the step now to be taken that He here departs from 
His usual method. Nor does He yield a jot of His pre-eminence 
by so doing. The angels who are invited to co-operate do not 
actually take part in the creation of man; they only look on as 
witnesses of the important work in which their sovereign is 
engaged. 

The originahty of P is perhaps sufficiently set forth in what 

^ Cf. Baudissin, Stiidien zur Semit. Religionsgeschichte, I (1876), p. 11; 
Dillmann, Genesis Critically and Exegetically Expounded (1897) p. 33 ff. ; 
Duncker, History of Antiquity, I, p. 353; Holzinger, Genesis (Kurzer 
Handkommentar), p. 16 ff.; Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria 
(1899), pp. 407-453 ; Zimmern, Biblische und Babylonische Urgeschichte 
(1901). Delitzsch, Babylonische Weltschopfrngsepos {i%^6), and Schrader's 
Keilinsch. Bibliothek, VI, give translations of the Babylonian texts. 
In English we have translations of the Babylonian account of the creation in 
Ball, Light from the East (1899), pp. 1-21 ; Hogarth, Authority and Archce- 
ology (1899), pp. 9-15; Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the 
Historical Records of Assyria (1902), pp. 18-56. Cf. also Keilinschriften 
ttnd Altes Testaf?ient,^ p. 508 ff. . A mythological survival in the Hebrew 
account is the declaration that the sun was made to rule the day and the 
moon to rule the night— language that is intelligible only on the theory that 
the sun and moon are animated beings — gods or demigods (Zimmern). 



20 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

has been said. That originaUty is seen not in invention of new 
material but in the rearrangement of what already exists. Prob- 
ably we owe to him the arrangement of the creative work in 
the time of one week. It has often been remarked that his 
number of acts of creation does not really fit his scheme. The 
actual number of periods is eight, so that he is obliged to crowd 
a double work into two of the days. He seems therefore to have 
taken a prior account which arranged the creation in eight acts. 
This he compressed into six days in order to give the Sabbath 
for rest. That God rested on the Sabbath is also taught in one 
edition of the Decalogue. 

The period between Adam and Noah is filled up with two 
genealogies, one of Cain and one of Seth.^ The latter shows 
itself to belong to P by its formal and statistical character. The 
author is careful to begin by a repetition of the language he has 
already used in his account of the creation of man — that he was 
created in the likeness of God, that they were created male and 
female, and that God had blessed them. He then proceeds with 
the statement that Adam lived a hundred and thirty years,^ and 
begat a son in his likeness. This phrase does not recur in any of 
the following generations, and its omission is perhaps an indica- 
tion that the farther men removed from their first created ances- 
tor the less they had of the divine image. ^ Ten generations are 
counted, Noah being the tenth. Adam, the first, was created 
good ; Noah, the last, was well pleasing to God ; but all the 
race in Noah's time had corrupted its way so that a Deluge was 
sent to destroy all but Noah and his family. As this author ig- 
nored the story of the Fall and as he rejected the account of the 
angelic marriages, together with the giant progeny thereof, w^e 
must assume that in his view the corruption had come in gradu- 
ally in the course of the ten generations. It is in accordance 
with this, that we are expressly pointed to two men in the list 
who were righteous : Enoch walked with God, and for his blame- 
less life was translated. It is difficult to see why this should be 
said unless it was thought that Enoch was removed from a wicked 

1 Gen. 4 1^-2*, and 5 ^-32. 

2 The variations in the different texts in the matter of numbers will be 
considered later. 

^ This is the Rabbinical notion, Bereshith Rabba (Wiinsche's translation, 
p. 108). 



THE ORIGINS 21 

and perverse generation. Noah also is declared to have been 
righteous among his contemporaries and to have walked with 
God.^ Here there can be no question that there is a contrast 
pointed out. This view is consistently carried out by the 
numbers in the Samaritan text, which make the three men 
who stand nearest to Enoch, namely : Jared, Methuselah, and 
Lamech, all perish in the Flood. But whether this proves 
the numbers of the Samaritan to be the original is open to 
question. 

The numbers of this list have been made the basis of chrono- 
logical systems down to a very recent time.^ It is impossible 
longer so to use them, for in the first place it is no longer possi- 
ble to believe that the lives of men ever extended to nine hun- 
dred years or more, and secondly we cannot believe that the 
creation of man took place at so late a date as results from this 
genealogy, whichever text we follow. The apologetic makeshift 
which interprets the names in our list as the names of '' patriar- 
chal dynasties" needs no refutation. 

But while rejecting the historicity of these numbers we may 
yet inquire for the intention of the author. It seems altogether 
likely that he was proceeding upon a theory. The round num- 
ber ten as the number of generations in the first period of the 
world's history indicates as much. In attempting to discover 
his general scheme, we are hampered by the differences in the 
texts which have come down to us. The Greek translation (in 
the copies most current) adds a hundred years to the period 
which elapsed in each man's life before the birth of his first son, 
except in the case of two names. When allowance is made for 
minor variations, this recension has still added nearly eight hun- 
dred years to the period between the Creation and the Flood. 
On the other hand the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch shortens 

^ Gen. 6 ^ a sentence of P, parallel to the declaration of J in 7 ^ 
^ Christian authors have generally arranged their histories of the world on 
the Biblical scheme. Thus Eusebius wrote a Chronicle on this basis. The 
difficulty of digesting all the Biblical data into a consistent whole is shown 
by the number of Biblical chronologies that have been compiled. An ex- 
tended list is given in the article Zeitrechniingm the Protest. Realencyclopddie. 
The system most widely accepted among English-speaking peoples is that of 
Archbishop Usher, expounded at length in his Chronologia Sacra (Works, 
Vols. XI and XII) and forming the basis of his Annates Sacrcz (Works, 
Vols. VIII and IX). 



22 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

the period by about three hundred and fifty years.* It is argued 
in favour of the Samaritan form of the table that it is more sym- 
metrical, shortening men's lives gradually down to the time of 
Noah, who alone, as a restorer of primitive righteousness, reaches 
the age of Adam. Consonant with this, the same form of text 
makes the years of fatherhood a diminishing series down to Noah, 
who again forms an exception. But the Greek readings have 
also found numerous advocates. As pointed out by Lagarde ^ 
they are based upon a system, for they make three thousand 
years to have elapsed at the birth of Peleg whose name (divismi) 
indicates half the expected duration of the world — six thou- 
sand years. A similar calculation lies at the basis of the received 
Hebrew text, for, as has recently been shown, its author intended, 
to date the building of Solomon's Temple three thousand years 
after the Creation. On the whole we may say that this is what 
we should expect from the Priestly author, as to him the Temple 
was really the centre of history. We need not be surprised to 
find such different systems imported into the text by the change 
of its readings, for the later Hebrew literature busied itself assid- 
uously with dates and figures.^ Had the Priestly author carried 
his work beyond the Conquest, we should be more certain of his 
theory. 

Babylonian influences seem to be indicated in this section by 
the ten patriarchs, for Babylonian legend makes ten kings to 
have reigned * in the antediluvian period. There is also a curi- 
ous coincidence between the i68 myriads of years which the 
Chaldean account assigns to the creation and the i68 hours 
(seven days) which the Biblical author allows for the same event. 

^ Comparative tables showing these variations are given by Heidegger, 
Historia Sacra Patriarcharum, Usher, Chronologia Sacra, and by several 
of the more recent writers, as Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte. 

2 Symmicta, I, p. 52 f. 

^ On the three thousand years from the Creation to the Temple cf. Bousset 
in the Zeitschr. fur d. A litest. Wissenschaft, 1900, p. 136 ff. The three 
thousand years are pointed out in IV Esdras, while the Assumption of 
Moses apparently indicates the same figure. The Book of Jubilees counts 
fifty jubilee periods of forty-nine years each to the conquest of Canaan. 

* According to Berossus. No correspondence in the names can be dis- 
covered. Professor Hommel's ingenious attempt in the Proceedings of the 
Society cf Biblical Archceology, 1893, p 243 ff . , was probably not intended 
to be taken seriously. Traces of Babylonian influence are, however, recog- 
nised by Gunkel, Genesis, p. 121 f. 



THE ORIGINS 23 

We can scarcely avoid seeing here an intentional contradiction — 
the power of God was such that He did in an hour what the heathen 
mythologist supposed would take ten thousand years. Other 
calculations intended to bring the Hebrew numbers into relation 
with those of the Chaldean account are too complicated to com- 
mand much confidence.^ What is more to our purpose here is 
the evident dependence of this genealogy upon the genealogy of 
Cain which just precedes it in our text. Adam, Enoch, and 
Lamech are names common to the two lists. In the Greek two 
others are alike, a fact which points to their original identity; 
for in this case dissimilation is a more probable result of trans- 
mission than assimilation. In any case the resemblance of Mehu- 
jael to Mahaleel, of Methushael to Methuselah, of Cainan to Cain 
is sufficiently striking to attract our attention. Irad and Jared 
differ by only a letter, and Enosh is a synonym of Adam. These 
resemblances and identities make it quite certain that the Priestly 
writer has copied and adapted the names given by his predeces- 
sor. Conjectures which find in these names ^ mythological 
survivals should therefore be applied to the Cainite table only. 

Now the Cainite table is apparently a Palestinian production. 
Cain the son of Adam must be the progenitor of the well-known 
Kenites, the friends and allies of Israel.^ Wanderers and nomads 
they were during the whole history of Israel. It does not seem 
violent to see in the other names of the list clan names. In fact 
we find Enoch as the name of a clan of Bedawin.* Irad cdin 
scarcely be distinguished from Arad, a district of the Wilderness; 
but such districts are often named from the clans that inhabit 
them. Tubal has been recognised as the eponym of the Tibareni, 
while Jabal and Jubal are expressly called fathers of tent-dwell- 

^ Still it is remarkable that the number of weeks in the 1656 years of 
Genesis is the number of five-year periods in the Chaldean sum (432,000 
years) ; see Marti's article Chronology in the Encyclop. Biblica. Further- 
more, Enoch, the seventh in the Biblical list, corresponds to the seventh 
Babylonian king who was called by the sun-god into his presence, and 
instructed in the secrets of astronomy and astrology. Zimmern, Biblische 
und Baby I. Urgesch., p. 29, and also in Keiliftschri/ten und A lies Testa- 
ment,^ p. 540 flf. 

^Cf. , for example, Ewald, Geschichte,'^ I, p. 383 (Eng. Trans. I, p. 267 f.). 

'The name of the man and the name of the clan are exactly the same 
in Hebrew, notice Num. 24 '^'^, Jd. 4 ^^ 

* Gen. 25 * — a son of Midian would of course be a clan of Bedawin. 



24 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ing and music-loving tribes. Vanished tribes, like Ad and 
Thamud in Arabic literature, might well be called Mehujael 
(wiped out by God) and Methushael (7nan of Sheol ). 

It only confirms this to notice that Lamech is the typical 
Bedawy. In possession of the sword invented by his son, the 
smith, he trusts in his good right arm to avenge him on his 
enemies : 

'* Hearken to my voice, wives of Lamech! 
Give ear to my speech. 
I shall surely slay a man for wounding me, 

And a lad for striking me ! 
If Cain is avenged sevenfold. 

Then Lamech seventy and seven. " ^ 

The ability and the readiness to answer blow with blow and to 
take abundant revenge for insults are admired in this state of 
society. We have no reason to suppose that the Lamech here 
depicted was anything but an admirable character to the earliest 
reciter of his story. The theory sometimes advanced that Lamech 
is introduced as the inventor of polygamy, and that he is con- 
demned Tor his innovation, is entirely without foundation. 

In these early chapters of Genesis we thus discover various 
strata of tradition. Perhaps the oldest is the nomad saga of 
Cain. According to this, the nomad Cain was the first-born of 
Adam. His descendants followed their father's profession down 
to Lamech, who was in fierceness and strenuousness all that the 
Bedawy ought to be. From his sons sprang the various divi- 
sions of mankind — hereditary guilds of herdsmen, smiths, and 
musicians. With this nomad saga we may class the earliest 
creation story, for, as we have seen, this story made the creation 
begin with the uninhabitable desert. In this desert Yahweh 
began by planting a garden. If the desert was Northern Arabia, 
the Garden was probably the oasis of Damascus.^ In the Garden, 

^ Gen. 4 ^^ i". The Song of Lamech has given rise to much discussion. I 
have adopted the interpretation of Stade. See his article on Das Kains- 
zeichen in his Zeitschrift, 1894, 1895, reprinted in his Aiisgewcihlte Akadem- 
ische Reden und Abhandlungen, 1899. 

'^ The description of the Garden and its four rivers in Gen. 2 ^""^^ is a 
later insertion. It evidently expresses Babylonian ideas and intends to 
locate Eden in Babylonia, That the original Hebrew tradition would put 
the creation of man in Syria was seen by earlier authors (as Heidegger, 
Historia Sacra Patriarcharnm, pp. 126, 142). The only Biblical occurrence 



THE ORIGINS 25 

man was too ambitious. He aspired after the knowledge that 
should make him like God, and he was therefore expelled. A 
sign was granted him, however, as a pledge that God had not al- 
together deserted him amid the dangers of the desert. When 
the race began to multiply on earth came the intermarriage with 
the jinn, resulting in a state of anarchy. This culminated in the 
building of the tower of Babel — rumors of whose vastness must 
have reached the desert-dwellers far and wide. Yahweh inter- 
vened for His own protection, and the resulting state of division 
among men has continued until the present day. In this narra- 
tive, Noah appears to be the discoverer of the vine and the 
progenitor of the inhabitants of Canaan. 

The Israelite peasant had a less favourable view of the Bedawy 
and his life — marauding and murderous as he knew it to be. To 
him such a life seemed to be the punishment for some great crime. 
Hence the author who gave the tradition literary form injected 
into the narrative the story of Cain and Abel — what more likely 
than the murder of the unoffending Abel by the Kenite patriarch ? 
In the light of this story the mark of Cain receives a new signifi- 
cance, though even here it is not the stigma which popular inter- 
pretation makes it. The author who made this insertion had re- 
ceived also the tradition of the Deluge, and he fitted it into his 
narrative as best he might, making the marriage of the angels 
prepare the way for it. 

Some time later P took up the subject. The treatment was too 
elaborate and too mythological for him. He therefore boldly re- 
wrote the whole section. After the Creation he needed only the 
genealogical table, whose names he borrowed, inserting the chron- 
ological data. His theory of the freedom of the will probably 
accounts for his making the corruption of mankind a gradual proc- 
ess. In the course of ten generations corruption became rife and 
the Deluge followed. Cain and Abel disappeared and Seth alone 
remained as the son of Adam from whom all mankind are derived. 

We have thus representatives of various schools of thought 

of the name Eden before the Exile is Am. I -^ which brings it into connect- 
ion with Damascus. Further discussion of the location of Eden would be 
out of place in an Old Testament History. The reader may consult Fried- 
rich Delitzsch, VVo Lag das Paradiesl (1881). That the 7tatne Eden was 
also Babylonian is probably true, sec Paton, Early History of Syria and Pal- 
estine, p. 52. 



26 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

putting before us their theories of the beginnings of mankind.* 
The redactor had too much reverence for Uterature to take sides 
with either against the other. He thought it a pity to lose either 
document. He therefore combined them into a single nar- 
rative. Doubtless there floated more or less distinctly before 
his mind a theory which has been widely accepted since his time 
— the theory, namely, that two types of humanity which may be 
labelled the good and the bad, or the pious and the depraved, 
existed from the beginning. The tribe of Cain represents the 
sinners, the ungodly, the heathen ; while in the tribe of Seth we 
find the pious, the righteous, the people of God. 

Instead of information concerning the beginning of things we 
have in these documents therefore a revelation of the progress of 
religious thought in Israel from the mythologically coloured an- 
thropomorphism of the ninth century before Christ down to the 
transcendental (if somewhat cold) spiritual philosophy of the post- 
exilic period. It has already been remarked that mythological 
as the earliest sources appear they are not polytheistic. In each 
of the documents Yahweh alone is the God of Israel, and He is 
also the Creator of the world and of mankind.^ 

The end of the first age of the world is marked by the Flood of 
Noah. Our account of it is made up from two documents which 
we naturally suppose to be the continuation of the two hitherto 
considered. There is indeed considerable ground for the asser- 

* The reader who is interested in the various points of view now com- 
bined in our book of Genesis should study carefully the excellent discussion 
of Carpenter and Battersby in the first volume of their work The Hexateiuh 
(1900, also published as a separate volume), especially pp. 57 ff., 121, 135 f.; 
and Gunkel's Legends of Genesis (1902). 

2 Until recent times all attempts to present Old Testament History have 
gone on the assumption that these early chapters of Genesis were a record of 
what actually took place at the beginning of the world. This treatment began 
with Josephus the Jewish historian, who paraphrased the Biblical account at 
the opening of his Antiquities. Among Christian writers who have followed 
this method may be mentioned Sulpicius Severus, whose two books of Chron- 
icles were widely read {Sidpicii Severi Chronicorum Libri Duo, Vindobonae, 
1866). After the Reformation, Biblical history was treated by many promi- 
nent theologians. One of the best examples is Buddeus, Historia Ecclesias- 
tica Veteris Testametit, 1 71 5, often reprinted. The latest endeavour to con^ 
struct a history on this theory is that of Kohler, Lehrbuch der Biblischen 
Geschichte Alten Testaments, 1875-1893. In the first chapter of this work 
there is an extended bibliography of the subject. Recent authors usually 
begin their history at a later period. 



THE ORIGINS 2/ 

tion that the earliest Yahwist had no knowledge of a Deluge.^ 
But in the expanded form of his narrative which was wrought in- 
to our Genesis the Deluge was already contained. We have no 
difficulty in dissecting out his story. In immediate connection 
with the account of the marriage of the Sons of God and the 
daughters of men we have a strong statement of the corruption of 
the earth : " Yahweh saw that the evil of man was great and 
every purpose of his mind was only evil all the time."^ This 
state of things is so distasteful to Yahweh that He repents of hav- 
ing made man and resolves to wipe out the race. Noah alone 
finds favour with Him and is made an exception. He receives 
the command to build an ark/ and when it is completed has 
seven days' warning, within which period he brings in the ani- 
mals as he is commanded. There are to be seven of each species 
of clean, and two of each species of unclean animals. This is to 
provide for sacrificial worship after the Flood, and the form of the 
command shows this wTiter's theory (known also from the account 
of Cain and Abel) that sacrifice is as old as the race. 

At the end of the seven days Noah and his family enter the 
ark and the rain begins. The rain continues forty days and' the 
waters swell steadily for this period. Yahweh thus blots out all 
that He has made from the face of the ground. As the waters are 
forty days in swelling they are also forty days in ebbing.* Noah 
then sends out the raven, but is apparently convinced that this 
bird is not the right one to give him the information he desires. 
He therefore sends out the dove (seven days later) who returns 
to him at evening. After another interval of seven days he 
makes another attempt with the dove and is rewarded with a 

* It is difficult to see what interest an author would have had in a gene- 
alogy of Cain, and in the developing civilisation of his descendants if that 
whole race was to be exterminated by the Deluge. 

2 This declaration (Gen. 6'^) follows now upon the statement that the 
Nephilim ;vere on the earth in those days, and that these were the mighty 
men that were of old time. As the account now reads, therefore, the cor- 
ruption of man is the sequel of the marriage of the angels with human wives. 
Whether this was the idea of the earliest writer is doubtful. 

^ The command to build the ark as originally contained in J is now lost, 
having been displaced by the account of P. We must remember the redac- 
tor's method — to make P the framework into which so much of J was 
fitted as was possible. 

* Such I take to be the meaning of 8 ^ ; the original datum has been dis- 
placed. 



28 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

freshly plucked olive leaf. After another week he is convinced 
that it is time to leave the ark. His first act is a sacrifice, on 
reception of which Yahweh vows never to repeat the destruction. 

The resemblance between the Biblical account and a Baby- 
lonian story has been known ever since the days of Berossus, a 
Babylonian priest who wrote a history of his own people in the 
fourth century B.C. His account of the Flood shows the follow- 
ing points of resemblance to the one we have been considering : 
(a) the hero Xisuthrus is the tenth in the line of kings which 
begins with the Creation, as Noah is the tenth from Adam ; (b) 
the deity commands him to build a ship, and to take into it his 
friends and relations with everything necessary to sustain life, as 
well as animals, both birds and quadrupeds ; (c) the command 
is carried out and the flood visits the earth; (d) afterward Xisu- 
thrus sends out some birds to see whether the waters have disap- 
peared, an experiment which he repeats the second time, when 
they come back with mud on their feet, and a third time, when 
they return no more ; (e) on quitting the vessel, Xisuthrus offers 
sacrifice to the gods ; (f) the mountain on which the ark stranded 
is in Armenia. 

The original Babylonian texts now in our possession confirm 
the account of Berossus, though, as we should expect, they are 
more highly mythological than his reproduction. From them 
we learn that the destruction of mankind was determined by a 
council of all the gods. But Ea ventured to disregard the will 
of the majority and resolved to save his favourite. This hero ^ re- 
ceives in a dream the command to build the ship. He builds it 
and makes it tight with asphalt. The rain which comes on after 
he enters the ark is described most vividly — Rammam^ the 
thunderer makes his voice heard ; black clouds overspread the 
heavens ; the furies (Annunaki ) bear about the torches of the 
lightning. The gods themselves cower before the storm and seek 
refuge in the upper heaven. Ishtar shrieks at the loss of her 
worshippers. Seven days of such violence are enough to accom- 
plish the object. After the ark strands upon the mountain called 

* His name is given in different forms by the Assyriologists, Ut-napishtim 
is given by Jensen. Rail {Light frojn the East, 1899) makes it N^uh- 
napishtim. Pinches {Old Test, in the Light of the IListoi-ical Records of 
Assyria and Babylon, 1902) returns to the earlier form Fir-napishtim, 

* According to Winckler ; the god is called Adad by Jensen. 



THE ORIGINS 29 

Nisir, the hero waits seven days and then sends out in succession 
a dove, a swallow, and a raven — at what intervals we are not told. 
When he comes out he offers a s-acrifice, over which the gods 
gather like flies to enjoy the sweet odour. Bel alone is angry 
that a human being has escaped, but at the intercession of Ea he 
is appeased and raises the builder of the ark, his wife, and the 
steersman to the rank of gods.^ 

The resemblances between the Hebrew and the Babylonian 
account are so marked that we conclude one must be borrowed 
from the other. It is plain that the Babylonian is the original. 
The attempt to trace both to a common source in primitive 
Semitic tradition is unsuccessful. The Hebrew text cannot be 
older than the ninth century B.C. The Babylonian, from which 
it was borrowed, is part of a great epic poem which must have 
had a complicated literary history. The epic did not treat the 
same problem which the Hebrew writer had in mind. The 
repopulation of the world after the Deluge is quite lost sight of 
in the account of Xisuthrus. His life is recounted to show that 
one and another of the children of man has escaped death and 
been transported to the dwelling of the gods. But this is only 
to show Gilgamesh, the real hero of the poem, that death is in 
fact the universal lot — the exceptions only prove the rule. It 
would be wrong to say then that the Babylonian tradition con- 
cerns a total destruction of mankind and a new head of the race. 
So far as appears, it did not regard the destruction of mankind as 
complete, and it certainly did not make the new race begin with 
the hero who escaped the Flood. 

What the account shows is that a Hebrew author took the 
story, closely following its details, from Babylonian sources and 
adapted it to his purpose. It is unnecessary for us to inquire 
for the historical content of the Hebrew story. The occasion 

^ The fragments of Berossus are given in Cory^s Ancient Fragments (1833) 
and in Winckler's Keilinschriftliches Textbuch {i^^2). A translation may 
be found in Lenormant's Begiymings of History (N. Y., 1882). The Cunei- 
form text, which is part of the Gilgamesh epic, is published in transliteration, 
with translation by Haupt, in Schrader's JCeilinschrifteti und A lies Testa- 
ment''- (1883, also in English translation, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and 
the Old Testament, 1885-88), by Winckler in his Textbuch and by Jensen 
in the Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, VI (1900). Compare also Jastrow's 
Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (1898) pp. 495-506 and the book of 
Pinches cited in the preceding note. 



30 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

of the Babylonian original may have been some frightful rain- 
storm followed by widespread inundation of the Euphrates valley. 
We may well excuse ourselves also from the task of defending 
the accuracy of the account, and from the attempt to prove that 
a vessel of the size of Noah's could contain all that it was built 
to contain.^ Nor need we spend time on the question of the 
universality of the Deluge. No doubt the author supposed it to 
cover the entire surface of the earth. Nor can we argue either 
the universality or the actuality of the catastrophe from the 
number of Deluge stories that have been discovered in various 
quarters of the globe.^ If the tradition arose in Babylonia from 
an inundation of the Euphrates, similar stories are likely to arise 
in the valley of any great river. We are not surprised, therefore, 
to find a Deluge story in China, where the Hoangho has so 
frightfully devastated the land many times since history began 
to be written, or in the valley of the Ganges. It is noticeable, 
however, that Egypt knows no Deluge, because the overflow of 
the Nile is a beneficent instead of a destructive episode. If there 
were a universal primitive tradition, we should expect to find it 
in Egypt, so that the argument from silence has great weight.^ 

Two forms of the story deserve brief notice. One is the Syr- 
ian, alluded to in connection with the sanctuary at Hierapohs, 
where the cleft in the earth was pointed out through which the 
great flood had passed into the earth.* From the locality in 
which this tradition is found we have no difficulty in supposing 
Babylonian influence. The more famous story is that of Deuka- 
lion, which also, in the form in which it has comedown to us, may 
have felt Babylonian influence. In its main stock, however, the 

^ An elaborate argument of this kind is contained in Lilienthal, Giite Sache 
der Gottlichen Offenbayimg ^ V (1754). Of course the extension of our zoo- 
logical knowledge ni,akes such an attempt increasingly difficult. 

2 Perhaps the most elaborate argument of this kind is Harcourt's Doctrine 
of the Deluge (2 vols., 1838), which, however, suffers from a vicious method. 
The author strives to force the most irrelevant traditions, names, and customs 
into support of his thesis. 

^ The Flood legends are collected in a little book by Andree, Die Flut- 
sagen (1891), and are compendiously treated by Diestel, Die Sintflut und 
die Flutsagen des Altertums (1876), 

* The treatise on the Syrian Goddess ascribed to Lucian gives this story, 
and names Deukalion as the hero of the Flood. But the name Deukalion is 
probably introduced for the sake of Greek readers. The reference is De 
Syria Dea, 12, 13. 



THE ORIGINS 31 

Story of Deukalion is a purely Greek myth, having nothing to do 
with a Deluge. Greek mythology knows of a number of gods 
and heroes carried in chests or arks across the sea. The germ of 
these representations is the rising of the sun out of the sea and 
his triumphant progress across its waves shown in the glancing of 
his light from crest to crest. That the Greek Deukalion is one of 
these, seems evident from the name.^ In this view it is significant 
that Xisuthrus in Babylonia, and Manu in the Indian story are also 
gods. The common origin, if there be one, is in a myth of the 
sun god. But further discussion of this phase of the subject 
does not belong here.^ 

Heretofore we have considered only the earlier form of the 
Hebrew Flood story — the one recorded by J. The Priestly 
writer, however, also treated the subject. In fact it fitted in ex- 
cellently with his conception of God as the almighty Judge of 
mankind. His account is apparently preserved for us entire, and 
it differs from that of his predecessor by its detailed and schematic 
character. He makes it a distinct chapter of his work, under the 
title of the Genealogy of Noah. He enumerates the sons of Noah 
and gives their names. The dimensions of the ark, its division 
into storys, and its materials are also given. The door and the 
window^ are mentioned. 

The thoroughness of the destruction is stated in unmistakable 
language. But where the earlier account commands that seven 
animals of the kind fit for sacrifice be brought into the ark with 
two of other species, this author makes no distinction, bringing in 
a single pair of each kind. The kinds are enumerated in language 
that reminds us of this author's account of the creation : '* Of 
birds after their kind and of cattle after their kind, and of all the 
creepers of the ground after their kind." * Behind this alteration 

* Deukalion is a diminutive of Zeus. The whole subject is discussed in 
the most interesting manner by Usener, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuch- 
ungen III (1899), of. also Encyc. Biblica, I, Col. 1059. 

^ Besides the literature already cited the student may consult the commen- 
taries on Genesis, and especially Buttmann's Mythologus, I, p. 180 flF. Butt- 
mann may be said to have begun the scientific study of the subject. 

' The word for window indeed occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament, 
but the author who reflected on all the details must have supposed light ne- 
cessary to the inmates of the great chest. 

* Gen. 6-°, cf. also 7'*. It is, of course, very possible that P based his ac- 
count on some Flood story that has not been preserved to us. Cf. Gunkel, 
Genesis, p. 92. 



32 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

of his predecessor's data is the theory that sacrifice was not offered 
until the giving of the Law. A marked feature of this account 
is the Chronology. The beginning of the Deluge is dated in the 
six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the 
seventeenth day of the month. As the year probably began in 
the autumn, the season of the opening Flood would be that of the 
winter rains. ^ The culmination of the waters is dated on the 
seventeenth day of the seventh month. The first stage of their 
recession is marked at the first day of the tenth month. The com- 
plete disappearance of the waters is recorded on the first day of 
the new year, and Noah's exit from the ark takes place on the 
twenty-seventh of the second month. The whole duration of 
the Flood is therefore one year and ten days. 

It is generally conceded that the author intends to indicate an 
exact solar year by his calculation; for a solar year is about ten 
days more than twelve lunations. That the early Hebrews cal- 
culated the month by observation of the moon is well known. 
It was forcibly brought to their attention, therefore, that the solar 
year, necessarily at the basis of the agricultural calendar, did not 
fit in with the lunar computation. The intercalation of an addi- 
tional month was the method taken ^ to bring them into har- 
mony. All that we are now interested to observe is that our 
author makes the solar year twelve months and ten days. In 
fact the excess of the solar year above twelve lunations is about 
eleven days. But as we have elsewhere an obstinate defence of 
a year of 364 days we may assume that Jewish tradition had 
fixed upon this number in defiance of exact astronomical obser- 
vation.^ More difficulty is made by his reckoning five months 
at a hundred and fifty days, as he is seen to do when we com- 
pare Gen. 7 ^-^ with 8 ^. Either he was here influenced by the 

^ According to P the reckoning of the spring month Abib as the be- 
ginning of the year dates from Moses. The Babylonian account makes 
the Flood begin in winter. Cf. Encyc. Bib., I, Col. 1059. 

2 So we judge from the Talmud. There is no Old Testament affirmation 
on the subject. 

^ The Book of Jubilees explicitly declares that a year is 364 days, that is, 
exactly fifty-two weeks. This seems to be an a priori affirmation — God 
would make His year an exact number of weeks, the week being the founda- 
tion of His calendar. The book of Enoch is also tenacious of a year of 364 
days. Both these books rest upon the account in Genesis, as is shown by 
Bacon, Hebraica VIII, p. 126. 



THE ORIGINS 33 

alleged Babylonian custom of counting thirty days to a month, 
or else more than one hand has been concerned in the nar- 
rative. 

As we should expect from this author's larger conception of 
the power of God, his account is more distinctly miraculous than 
that of his predecessor. The rain, however violent, is not enough 
(as he supposes) to bring about the flood. The windows of the 
great celestial storehouse of water are therefore opened and the 
fountains of the subterranean reservoir burst out. In accordance 
with the greatness of the calamity is the completeness of the de- 
struction : ''And there died all flesh that moves on the earth, birds 
and cattle and wild animals and the swarming life on the earth, 
as well as all mankind." The height of the waters is not left to 
the imagination — fifteen cubits above the highest mountain satis- 
fies all the requirements. Another miraculous feature seems to 
be that P makes the animals come to Noah at the time they are 
needed, without any effort on his part to collect them. 

So far, the narrator has simply rewritten the story according 
to his presuppositions. One detail remains in which he has 
enriched the text ; after the Deluge God makes a covenant with 
Noah — or rather grants a covenant to Noah, for in P the Deity 
never appears as one of the contracting parties to an agreement ; 
He imposes regulations or grants privileges as the Sovereign of the 
universe. The constitution here imposed extends the rights of 
man over the animals so that he may use them as food. With 
the permission comes, however, a strict prohibition of the eating of 
blood. This is in accordance with P's theory that the Law was 
the culmination of God's revelations to mankind, and that it was 
preceded by rudimentary regulations designed to lead up to it. 
On this theory antediluvian man received the fruits as his por- 
tion, with no legislation except the command to subdue the 
earth to cultivation. Noah received permission to eat flesh, ac- 
companied by a prohibition of blood and of murder. Abraham 
received the ordinance of circumcision with a strict command to 
observe it. Moses received the full legal system. It does not 
seem out of place, therefore, that this arrangement is recorded 
here. The eating of blood was so abhorrent to the Jew that he 
could not suppose it was ever allowed even to the Gentile world. 
Possibly our author was aware that in some Gentile religions the 
eating of blood was regarded as sacrilegious. It would be easy 



34 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

for him to conclude that mankind had received the prohibition 
before the dispersion of the descendants of Noah. 

At first sight it seems highly mythological, and therefore con- 
trary to the view of P, that the rainbow is introduced as the sign 
of the covenant. It is, of course, possible that this item was 
originally in J, and copied from him by P. The bow was 
originally the bow of the Thunderer, which he laid aside at the 
conclusion of the storm. This is its real mythological interpre- 
tation, and in this view of it we see how far our author is from 
the original mythology. To him the bow has become simply the 
sign of the covenant — ^just as circumcision is in the divine good 
pleasure made a sign of the covenant with Abraham. From this 
point of view the bow has a reason for existence in the account in 
which we find it. Babylonian or Assyrian parallels have not yet 
been discovered. Nor can we say in general that the details of 
P show Babylonian influence.^ 

Our examination of the story of the Deluge confirms what we 
discovered in regard to the account of the Creation. Histori- 
cal, it cannot be called. In its origin it is mythological, with a 
possible early inundation of the Euphrates as its basis in actual 
occurrence. From Babylon it wandered to the west and was 
naturalised in Canaan. An early Israelite writer stripped it of 
its polytheism and made it tell of the justice of Yahweh upon a 
race of aggressors. After the Exile the Priestly author, finding 
it too primitive in its theology, pruned it of its more anthropo- 
morphic features and made it introduce God's earliest covenant. 
A redactor, to whom we cannot be too grateful, thought it a pity 
to lose either story, and combined the two in a single narrative. 
History of the world is not given by it ; history of Israel's tradi- 
tion is here in abundance. 

^ Of course we do not know what Assyriology may yet have in store for 
us. Jensen {Encyc Bib , I, col. 1060) supposes the rainbow to belong to J 
originally. It should be remarked that the prohibition of blood is supposed 
by some to be a later insertioni cf. Holzinger in Marti, Handkommentar. 



CHAPTER III 

THE PATRIARCHS 

The greater part of the Book of Genesis is taken up with the 
history of the Patriarchs. After the confusion of tongues the 
next great event is the call of Abraham. In obedience to this 
call he leaves the East and comes to Canaan. What follows is 
the family history of the progenitors of Israel, ending with the 
settlement of the whole clan in Egypt. Abraham himself lives 
the nomad life in Canaan. He pitches his tent at different points 
from Shechem to the border of Egypt, on occasion going into 
Egypt itself. Isaac leads a more settled life, being found for the 
most part in the Negeb or South Country. Jacob is a man of 
many wanderings, spending his youth in Canaan, but going to 
the East for his wives, returning to Canaan with great possessions, 
and emigrating to Egypt in his old age. 

The many duplicates in the story and the inconsistencies of 
its parts cause us to pursue the analysis which we have already 
begun. It is not difficult to discover the main strands of the nar- 
rative, which have now become three in number. The frame- 
work continues to be furnished by the Priestly writer, whose 
fondness for numbers and for orderly arrangement we have had 
occasion to notice. If we had his book alone, our material 
would be very limited. In the life of Abraham he begins with a 
genealogy which gives the Patriarch his place in the line of Seth. 
The emigration from Ur-Kasdim to Haran and from Haran to 
Canaan is narrated very briefly. The separation from Lot re- 
quires but a single sentence. The only incidents of importance 
to the writer are : the covenant between God and the Patriarch, 
which is ratified by the seal of circumcision ; the promise of a 
son, which is followed by the birth of Isaac ; and the death of 
Sarah, which gives occasion for the purchase of the cave of 
Machpelah. This can hardly be called a life of Abraham ; it 
is the barest outline designed to embody a theory of universal 
history. 

35 



36 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Isaac and Jacob inherit the promises^this is about all we can 
say of them as they appear in the sketch of P. The older stories 
were not wanting in details that gave offence to the later writer. 
Hence his bare mention of Isaac, and the summary way in which 
Jacob is treated. This father of the tribes is sent to the East to 
get a wife of kindred blood. The return is followed by a reve- 
lation at Bethel, with the change of name from Jacob to Israel. 
The story of Joseph shrinks to a mere allusion, but we receive a 
list of Jacob's descendants, and are told of his death and burial. 

This outline shows that we cannot depend upon P for historical 
material. His interest is not at all in the life of the Patriarchs, 
and indeed his Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are without individu- 
aUty and without life. Very different is the impression made 
when we turn to the other documents, or the composite narrative 
into which they have been woven. Here, at any rate, is life, and 
here is colour. We are admitted to the family of the heroes, 
hear their prevarications and quarrels, see the sanctuaries at which 
they worship, admire the hospitality of Abraham and his faith, 
follow with breathless attention the romantic fortunes of Joseph, 
and rejoice with him when he welcomes his aged father to a new 
home. The charm and power of these stories are attested by the 
hold they have had upon a hundred generations of readers. 

In the troublesome task of getting at real history, however, we 
are confronted at once by difficulties. The El-Amarna tablets 
show us the condition of Canaan at the time when our docu- 
ments suppose the Patriarchs to be sojourning there. We learn 
that the country was thickly settled, the inhabitants living in 
fortified towns which were often at war with each other. Nomad 
tribes were pressing in from the desert, making the open country 
unsafe, and even compelling the towms to make terms with them. 
This state of things seems to have been chronic. It leaves no 
place for the peaceable immigrant like Abraham. For the most 
striking thing about our stories is the absence of real warfare. 
The authors are indeed aware that the Canaanite was then in the 
land, but the knowledge has left scarcely a trace on the narrative. 
When Abraham and Lot, with their flocks and herds, separate, it 
is only because the land is not able to bear them ; that is, be- 
cause there is not pasture enough for the cattle. Never a word 
is there of Canaanitish opposition to such overrunning of the 
country. The eternal feud between the cultivator and the shep- 



THE PATRIARCHS 3/ 

herd is known to us in later times. We are sure that a nomad 
clan could not occupy the pasture lands except at the point of 
the sword. But Abraham's sword nowhere appears in the nar- 
rative. There might be an arrangement such as at a later time 
existed between the Kenites and the Hebrews. But this is a cove- 
nant relation, and Abraham never enters into covenant with the 
Canaanites. There is a covenant relation established between 
Abraham (or Isaac) and Abimelech at Gerar.^ But even this 
covenant only establishes the title to some wells. It could not 
give the nomads general rights of pasture throughout the country. 
The picture presented by the authors of Genesis seems to as- 
sume that the Patriarchs moved about the country, finding no 
let or hindrance from anyone. They built altars, and so estab- 
lished sanctuaries where they would. We might almost think of 
the land as entirely without inhabitants were it not for the ex- 
press declaration of the presence of the Canaanite already cited. 
Two incidents only, seem to throw more light on the situation. 
The first of these is Abraham's battle with the kings, narrated 
in Genesis 14. Here, to our surprise, Abraham appears as a gen- 
eral. He has a body of trained slaves which enables him to defeat 
an army of regulars. The inconsistency of the picture with what 
we find elsewhere is plain enough. Where was this valiant band 
of retainers when Sarah was taken into the harem of Pharaoh ? 
The doubt suggested by the discordance in the accounts is con- 
firmed by closer examination of the narrative of victory itself. 
The route of Chedorlaomer^ is unintelligible if his objective 
point was the cities of the Plain. The mustering of four Mesopo- 
tamian kings against the five towns was ludicrously out of pro- 
portion. The victory of Abraham, the complete recovery of the 
spoil, and the lack of any attempt on the part of Chedorlaomer 
to re-establish himself, are alike inconceivable. We are com- 
pelled, therefore, to leave this section out of our calculation. Its 
discordance with the general picture is too pronounced to allow 
us to regard it as historical.^ 

' Gen. 21 and 26. The two accounts are duplicates of one tradition. 

2 The archaic allusion to Rephaim and Zuzim (Gen. 14^^), and other 
long-perished nations seems to be based on the notice in Deut. 2. The 
route around the Dead Sea, into the desert and back, is impracticable for an 
army. 

' Desperate attempts have been made of late years to rescue the historicity 
of this chapter, on the ground of Babylonian literature. All that seems to be 



38 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Before examining the other case of Patriarchal warfare we must 
consider the general question which confronts us : In what sense 
are the names of the Patriarchs understood by the original au- 
thors? In response to this we must admit that Jacob or Israel is 
in the Old Testament, for the most part, the name of a people 
rather than of an individual. In the earlier prophets the Patri- 
archs as individuals do not appear. When we consider that the 
stories of J and E are earlier than Amos, this is a remarkable fact. 
It seems to indicate that Amos and Hosea, at any rate, had little 
idea of the Patriarchs as individual men. ^ To the Oriental it is 
natural to speak of the clan as an individual. Thus the Arab 
will use indifferently the sentences. The Ba?iu Nizar made a foray ^ 
and Nizar made a foray. Hebrew usage was not different, as we 
see from such a sentence as, ^' Israel went out to meet PhiHstim 
in war."^ The same fact is abundantly illustrated in the genea- 
logical tables. The author of Genesis lo groups the nations of 
his world in families. The ''sons" of Japhet are Gomer, Ma- 
gog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. From other 
references in the Old Testament we have no difficulty in identify- 
ing these names as the names of nations. Equally transparent is 
the assertion that the ''sons " of Ham are Cush, Egypt, Phut, and 
Canaan. Almost more expressive is the declaration that Egypt 
begat Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuchim, Pathrusim, Caslu- 
him, and Caphtorim.^ The names in this sentence are in form 
names of tribes, and never were anything else. What the author 
has in mind is that the people of Egypt fall into groups which 

established is that the author of our section knew by tradition of early Elam- 
itic supremacy in Western Asia. The reader may compare Hommel, Altis- 
raelitische Ueberlieferung (1897), pp. 147-202, and the article Chedorlaomer 
in the Encyc. Bib., I, 732, also Gunkel, Handkomfnentar, Genesis, p. 
262 ff. 

^ Amos uses the names Isaac, Jacob, and Israel always of the people, 
never of individuals. Hosea in one passage (12 ^~^'^) alludes to the history 
of Jacob as an individual. Abraham does not appear in the prophetic litera- 
ture till the Exile. Cf. Hollmann, Untersuchungen iiber die Erzvdter bei 
den Prop he ten (1897). 

2 1 Sam. 4', where the English disguises the fact that PhiHstim is a per- 
sonification like Israel. 

'Gen. Io''^ The Hebrew adds out of 7vhich (Casluhim, but perhaps 
more properly to be attached to Caphtorim) came forth PhiHstim. This is 
doubtless a later insertion, but the point of view of authors and editors is 
the same in the matter we are now considering. 



THE PATRIARCHS 39 

call themselves Ludim, Anamim, and so on. It is doubtful 
whether he supposed there ever was a man called Egypt or that 
he had sons whom he named Ludim or Anamim. The genea- 
logical scheme was a convenient way of representing the facts of 
geography and it was nothing more. Even if the Biblical writers 
supposed that nations or tribes descended from a single individ- 
ual, we are able to say on the basis of large historical investi- 
gation that this is never the case. The nation of Egypt had 
existed for thousands of years before the earliest Hebrew writer 
reflected on history. It is quite certain that the nation could 
not trace its origin to a single ancestor. 

It is doubtful whether we are on more secure footing in the 
other genealogical sections. We may take for example the fam- 
ily of Esau.^ One of his wives was Oholibama, which is quite 
certainly a clan. Among his sons or grandsons we find Teman, 
Kenaz, and Amalek, which also are names of place or clan. When 
we reflect on the number of Edomite clans which must have per- 
ished without leaving any record of themselves, we see the strong 
probability that if our knowledge were more complete we should 
be able to identify all the names in the list as names of clans. 
Esau would then take his place by the side of Egypt, as simply 
the eponym of the Edomite people. We come to the same 
result when we examine the table of Ishmael. In this case we 
know that Ishmael itself is a tribe name, as is Hagar. Among 
the descendants we recognise Nebaioth, Kedar, Dumah, Massa, 
and Tenia as place or clan names. And when we turn to the 
list of Abraham's descendants by Keturah we identify Midian, 
Sheba, Dedan, and Ephah without difficulty.^ 

These examples enable us to assert that the common method 
of our Hebrew writers (for all the documents are ahke in this re- 
spect) was to personify clans, tribes, nations, or geographical divi- 
sions, and treat them as individuals. Probably the writers them- 
selves were in many cases aware that the individuals of whom they 
wrote were only personifications — it is impossible that a single 
man should bear the name Caphtorim or Philistim. The author 
who affirmed that Canaan begat Sidon and Heth and the whole 

'Gen. 36. The list of "dukes" of Edom is simply a list of clans in- 
habiting the country. 

^ Gen. 25 '-®' '2"^^. The identifications may be considerably increased in 
pumber with the help of the inscriptions. 



40 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

list of nations of that group, must have known that he was using 
imagery — as well as a writer of the present day knows what he 
means when he speaks of Columbia and her daughters. 

The names of the sons of Jacob are all names of tribes, and 
what is true of the names just considered must be true of these 
also. This is made clear by the oldest portions of our literature. 
By common consent we may consider under this head the Song 
of Deborah and the Testament of Jacob. ^ In the former we 
find Reuben sarcastically questioned : '' Why didst thou sit 
among the ash-heaps, to listen to the pipings at the sheepfolds?" 
The Reuben thus addressed is the tribe. In the rest of the poem 
Gilead, Dan, Asher, Zebulon, and Naphtali are likewise men- 
tioned or apostrophised as individuals. This is of course only 
legitimate poetical personification, and it might not throw any 
light on usage elsewhere. But the comparison of this poem with 
the Testament of Jacob is instructive, for in the latter the casual 
reader may find individuals where tribes alone were in the mind 
of the writer. '' Simeon and Levi are brothers ; deceit and vio- 
lence are their weapons ' ' ^ — the verse would apply to individ- 
ual warriors, and in view of the story of Dinah we should naturally 
interpret it so. But when we read further, '< I will divide them 
in Jacob and scatter them in Israel," we see distinctly that the 
tribes must be in the writer's mind. With this clue we may go 
through the poem, and we discover that all the personages are 
personifications.^ Judah is the tribe that rejoices in conquest 
and in the cultivation of the vine — the Patriarch Judah had no 
such character. Zebulon lives on the sea-shore ; Issachar is a 
tributary, rendering forced labour to his master ; Dan is a high- 
way robber ; Gad is a rider on forays ; Asher is a cultivator ; 
Joseph is a successful warrior and is blessed with a fertile country; 
Benjamin is a warrior and plunderer. The author could scarcely 
have put together a list that diff"ered more widely from the char- 
acter of the individual Patriarchs. But applied to the tribes, 
everything is appropriate. 

^ Judges 5 and Gen. 49 

2 The verse (Gen. 49 '') is obscure in some of its words, but the general 
sense is sufficiently clear. 

^ Reuben alone seems to be an exception, but even in his case there is 
only one sentence (v.*) that requires an individualistic interpretation. This 
sentence must therefore be a poetical representation of some tribal episode 
now lost to us. 



THE PATRIARCHS 4l 

What we have seen in these oldest documents is the constant 
personification of the tribes, with the consciousness that tribes 
are meant. In other passages of Genesis the same consciousness 
crops out. Thus Rebekah is told: ''Two nations are in thy 
womb" — not two men, or two fathers of tribes. In Isaac's 
blessing upon his son Jacob we read: 

" May nations serve thee, and peoples bow before thee ; 
Be lord over thy brothers, and may thy mother's sons bow before 
thee." 

It would be pertinent to ask why brothers and mother's sons are 
mentioned in the plural when Jacob never had but one brother. 
Besides, it was never true of Jacob the Patriarch that nations 
served him. There can be no doubt that the poet's whole field 
of vision was occupied by the two peoples Edom and Israel. This 
is strikingly confirmed by the other benediction (if we call it 
so) in the same story : 

" Away from the rich fields shall be thy dwelling ; 
And without the dew of heaven from above ; 
By thy sword thou shalt live ; and thy brother thou shalt serve ; 
But when thou growest strong, thou shalt break his yoke from thy 
neck. " * 

Here also the people of Edom are really the subject — Esau never 
served his brother, but the Edomites were subjugated by David, 
and later threw off the yoke thus placed upon them. In this in- 
stance we have a clear case in which the story of the Patriarchs 
is a poetic reflection of the historical relations of two peoples. 

Historical relations rather than historical incidents are reflected 
in these stories. In a few instances historical incidents may be 
behind the story. The most striking example is the story of 
Dinah, already alluded to as one of the two warlike incidents in 
the lives of the Patriarchs. AVe must suppose that what actually 
took place was something as follows : In the course of the immi- 
gration of Israel the people came into conflict with the town of 
Shechem. One clan (Dinah) was conquered by the Canaan ites 
and made tributary. The bulk of the people (Jacob) thought 

' Gen. 27 ^"^ ^- ; cf. v. 2^. The text of *° is apparently corrupt. I have fol- 
lowed Ball with some misgiving. The fact that this last clause was added 
later (Gunkel) does not interfere with the argument — the clause is quite in 
the spirit of the context. 



42 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

themselves not strong enough to avenge the wrong. But two 
clans were of a different mind. These (Simeon and Levi) 
formed a treacherous plan by which to release their sister clan. 
They therefore affected to be satisfied with the new arrangement, 
and proposed a general alliance with rights of intermarriage on 
condition that the Canaanites adopt the rite of circumcision. 
This being agreed to, they fell upon the unsuspecting town when 
the men were disabled by the operation and massacred the whole 
male population.^ The events are represented to us in the story 
by the acts of the individual sons and daughters of Jacob. 

Not many of the Genesis stories are so clearly historical as 
this one; and those that are historical deal with events of a later 
time. What interests us here is, first, the fact that the Patriarchs 
cannot be taken as individuals. If individuals Reuben, Gad, and 
Judah never existed, it is plain that individuals Jacob, Isaac, and 
Abraham cannot have any more substantial reality. We have 
to do here with figures of the poetic or legend-building imagina- 
tion. After the clans began to be treated as individuals the 
story-tellers busied themselves lovingly with these interesting 
figures. They became the heroes of adventure, and the character 
of the various peoples began to be reflected in their eponyms. 
The most striking is Jacob. In this cunning adventurer we see 
the ideals of nomad Israel admirably depicted. When we have 
ceased to be uneasy at seeing such a character held up as a pattern 
saint, then we begin to appreciate the skill with which he is 
described. 

A story of this kind is properly called a saga. Such sagas cir- 
culate orally long before there is any written literature. They 
are products of the poetic imagination. If one of them has a 
historical incident as its basis, the incident is transformed. For 
the most part, however, the interest of the narrator is not histor- 
ical but social. The picture drawn is one of personal and family 
life, as we see in the stories of the Patriarchs. " We hear a num- 
ber of details which, whether we take them for authentic or not, 
are of no value for [political] history: that Abraham was pious 
and magnanimous, that he once sent away his concubine to grat- 
ify his wife, that Jacob deceived his brother, that Leah and 
Rachel were jealous of each other — unimportant anecdotes of 

' The composite nature of the narrative (Gen. 34) is shown by Ball and 
Gunkel. I have followed what seems to me the older form of the story. 



THE PATRIARCHS 43 

country life, histories of wells, of watering troughs, of the inner 
chamber, delightful to read but anything rather than historical 
events." The author from whom I am quoting adds, what is 
evident on reflection, that whereas in genuine historical tra- 
dition we must find a way in which eye-witnesses of the events 
have communicated their observations to the narrator of the his- 
tory, in the Patriarchal sagas we have an interval of four hundred 
years (in any case) between the events and the narrator. It is 
impossible to suppose that tradition has carefully conserved the 
smallest details of Patriarchal family life during all this period.^ 

At one time there must have existed a great mass of this poet- 
ical material. It was in the form of detached stories, each a 
unit in itself. When a written literature began, the stories had 
already been grouped in a genealogical scheme. This fact is 
shown by the plan common to J and E, which plan made it easy 
to combine the two documents in a single narrative. The origi- 
nal separateness of the sagas is shown by the duplicates which we 
find in our documents. Thus the prevarication concerning a 
wife is related once of Abraham and twice of Isaac ; the conse- 
cration of Bethel is attributed to Abraham and also to Jacob; 
the name of Beersheba is given by Abraham and also by Isaac.^ 

Two things strike the attention in considering these stories. 
The first is, that they have the nomad life as their ideal. No 
doubt this is a historical recollection — the Israelites were Beda- 
win before their settlement in Canaan. This they confess by 
making Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob nomads. The only exception 
is Isaac, who is represented as sowing and reaping, and who is 
therefore thought of as beginning the agricultural life. How 
the Israelite conceived the ideal shepherd is seen in the case of 
Jacob. His skill in caring for his flocks, his fidelity in watching 
them by day and by night, ' his shrewdness in dealing with the 
cunning and covetous Laban, his diplomatic method of concili- 
ating the powerful chieftain Esau after he had twice overreached 
him — all these show us the shepherd as (according to the concep- 
tion of the times) he ought to be. The frank worldliness of the 

' Gunkel, Genesis, p. iii. Gunkel's whole introduction (now accessible in 
English with the title The Legends of Genesis) is instructive and valuable. 

'The prevarication, Gen. 12 ^"-^^ 20, and 26"^-^^; Bethel, Gen. 12*, 
28 10-" and 35 15 ; Beersheba, Gen. ? j "-31 ^nd 26 ^6-35, 

»Gen. 31 38-^, 



44 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Story in many of its phases contrasts strangely with the religious 
tone which runs through it. But this is the nature of early relig- 
ion — the God who can give success is the God who commands 
the faith of primitive man. We lose the point of the ancient 
story when we read into it our own religious ideas. 

It follows that the main interest of this material is the picture 
it gives of the nomad hfe at its best. Abraham's faith and hospi- 
tality have been justly admired in all ages. The contest of cunning 
between Jacob and Laban is equally vivid, if not equally admi- 
rable. The arrogance of the maid-servant who has been promoted 
to her master's bed ; the jealousy of two wives in the same house- 
hold, and the superstitious means they use to get offspring; the 
father's indulgence of the son of his favourite and the consequent 
hatred of the other sons — these are drawn to the life, and show us 
how things go in polygamous society. Slavery is assumed as a 
matter of course, and the position which the trusted slave may 
attain is shown in the story of the wooing of Rebekah, as it is in 
the story of Joseph in Egypt. That the standard of morality 
falls short of that which we hold, has already been intimated. 
Abraham's cowardly denial of his wife is rewarded with flocks 
and herds ; Jacob's hard bargain with his brother and his fraud 
in the matter of the blessing are nowhere blamed. His dealing 
with Laban is a case of diamond cut diamond. Rachel's theft 
of the Teraphim is a matter of amusement to the narrator — the 
household god is not the object of heartfelt reverence when he 
can be thus literally sat upon by a woman. Tamar's heroism in 
securing by fraud the levirate rights which have been withheld 
from her, doubtless appealed strongly to those who first heard 
the tale, and the more drastic measures of Lot's daughters also 
awakened something like admiration. The frankness of the por- 
trayal is equally instructive, whether the characters be real or 
imaginary. The strong moral sense is evident, though the mo- 
rality is not that of our time. 

The interest of the authors is evidently centred in the land of 
Palestine. A large number of the stories are intended to account 
for place names. One is intended to account for the physical 
conformation of the country — this is the story of the destruction 
of Sodom. The Dead Sea is a phenomenon calculated to give 
rise to a saga. Many another lake is supposed to have swallowed 
up villages or cities, whose towers the boatman thinks iie sees be- 



THE PATRIARCHS 45 

neath the waters, whose church bells he seems to hear on a calm 
evening. The cause of such a catastrophe can be nothing less 
than the wrath of the gods. In the well-known story of Philemon 
and Baucis the wrath of the gods is aroused by the inhospitable 
conduct of the people. The people of Sodom are worse than in- 
hospitable, and the wrath of Yahweh leaves its permanent impress 
upon the region, in the uncanny Sea with its burned and barren 
shore. That no marked change in the natural features of the re- 
gion has taken place within historic times is now generally con- 
ceded. The value of the story to us is its abhorrence of the un- 
natural vices of the Canaanites — vices from which Israel itself 
was not free.^ 

Much interest is shown by our authors in the legends which 
had gathered around the various sanctuaries of Canaan. We 
must remember that the worship on every high hill and under 
every green tree which Jeremiah so earnestly denounces, was for 
many centuries the established worship in Israel. Hence the re- 
ligious motive which led the early writers to trace these sanctu- 
aries to Patriarchal consecration. Bethel is one of these holy 
places. According to one story it was sacred because Abraham 
had built an altar there. According to another, Jacob had a rev- 
elation which showed him there the ladder which was the gate of 
heaven. A third account makes him receive there a direct prom- 
ise from Yahweh.^ In commemoration of the revelation a 
ma^<;eba or sacred pillar is set up by Jacob, which he regards as 
the symbol or rather the residence of the divinity — for the stone 
is called Hoiise-of-God. We could hardly have a more vivid 
commentary on the declaration of the Book of the Covenant : 
*' In every place where I bring my name to remembrance I will 
come to thee and bless thee." In the consciousness of the people, 
certain places were sacred. Their sacredness was made known by 
God's bringing Himself to mind in some extraordinary event, an 
omen or a dream. Where the divine presence was thus made 
known an altar was erected and a pillar set up. There the people 

' Compare Judges 19. On similar sagas, Cheyne, in \\\^ New World, 1892, 
pp. 236-245; Usener, Sintfliitsagen, p. 246 f.; Andree, Fhitsagen, p. 49 f. 
On the various elements which enter into the Sodom story, Gunkel, Genesis^ 
p. 194 f. 

^ The two accounts of Jacob's dream are now woven into one (J E) ; cf. 
the commentaries on Genesis, or Ball's text — Gen. 28. Abraham's altar is 
mentioned Gen, 12^. 



46 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

came with their tithes ; there they celebrated the yearly festivals, 
poured oil upon the sacred stone, slept under the supernatural in- 
fluence, hoping to receive a revelation in a dream.^ 

The state of things before the eyes of the narrator was this : 
every village had a sanctuary of this kind, every remarkable 
tree was regarded as the seat of a divinity, many of the fountains 
which were a source of blessing to the land were likewise sacred. 
All this state of things went back to the pre-prophetic stage of 
religion. Doubtless the sacredness of many of these sites was 
first attributed to them by the Canaanites. Israel adopted the 
sanctuaries and consecrated them to Yahweh. And a part of the 
adoption was effected by connecting them with the Patriarchs. 
Thus Abraham built many altars in his wanderings. He also 
planted sacred trees. For the information that he planted a 
tamarisk at Beersheba and called there upon the name of Yahweh 
El-Olain would be useless unless it meant that the tree was con- 
secrated to the divinity. It can scarcely be accidental, therefore, 
that Abram has a theophany at the Oak of the Oracle y or that his 
altar is placed by the Oaks of Ma7nre!^ 

A theophany shows the sacredness of Penuel, and the name of 
the place (Face-of-God) is its memorial. Beer-lahai-roi is a 
similar locality, though the etymology is obscure. The place 
where Abraham offered Isaac is another instance — the place was 
evidently sacred before Abraham was made acquainted with it. 
A different sort of sanctuary is one where an ancestor or ancestors 
are buried. Thus the Tomb of Rachel is evidently sacred, for Jacob 
erected a mag^eba there. The interest which originally attached 
to the Cave of Machpelah is of the same kind. These graves were 
sanctuaries, and in the early religion of Israel the manes were 
worshipped at the place of burial.^ Machpelah has continued to 

' Jacob is the inaugurator of this method of inquiring the divine will. 
IFor parallels in other religions see Deubner, De Incubatione {i<^od). On 
:sacred stones or pillars in other religions, see the article Baitulos in Roscher, 
-Lexicon der Griechischen und Romischen Mythologie, I, p. 746. 

2 Gen. 12 ^ 13 ^^ 21^3. On the sanctity of fountains, trees, and hills 
;among the Semitic peoples, cf. Baudissin's essay in his Studien zur Semit- 
.ischen Religionsgeschichte, II, pp. 143-268 ; and Curtiss's chapter on the 
High-places in his Prwiitive Semitic Religion (1902). 

^ It would seem that a maffeba was also placed upon the grave of Deb- 
orah : Gen 35 ^, continued in v. ^*. A survival of the worship of the manes 
is the reverence paid at the tombs of " saints" all through the East at the 



THE PATRIARCHS 47 

be a sanctuary, as we know, down to the present time. Prob- 
ably this, like the other sacred places, was originally consecrated 
to a Canaanitish god. Whether Abraham was originally such a 
god, may be doubted.^ The reason why P lays such emphasis 
upon Machpelah is doubtless that he wished to contradict the 
Edomite claim to Hebron, which became offensive in the post- 
exilic period. 

The writers we are considering were also especially interested 
in the possession of Canaan by Israel. They could account for 
the success of their ancestors in securing so goodly a land only by 
supposing an act of grace on the part of God. Hence we find 
frequent emphasis of God's promises to the Patriarchs, His cov- 
enant with them, and His protecting care. He causes a terror to 
fall upon the Canaanites so that they do not pursue Jacob after 
the massacre at Shechem. He warns Abimelech against trespass- 
ing upon Abraham's marital rights. He forbids Laban to do 
Jacob any harm.^ This protecting care is recorded in the names 
of some of the characters — Ishmael is so called because his prayer 
(or that of his mother) is heard. The birth of Ishmael, Isaac, 
Esau, Jacob is due to especial divine favour, because the wives of 
the Patriarchs were barren. Most impressive of all is the nearness 
of Yahweh to His clients. He comes to them frequently in 
dreams or theophanies. He makes and repeats promises of pro- 
tection and prosperity. He enters into solemn covenant with 
Abraham, condescending to the methods by which human con- 
tracts are ratified, and the promise is repeated to Isaac and 
Jacob. For Abraham's sake Lot is rescued in the destruction 
of Sodom. Even the prevarication in the matter of Sarah is 
made an occasion for blessing the Patriarch — the sincerity of 
the author's religion does not, of course, excuse his defective 
moral sense. 

Historically it was a puzzle that Lot, the nephew of Abraham, 
should be separated from Israel by the Dead Sea. The saga of 

present day. A considerable literature might be cited on the subject of ani- 
mism in the religion of Israel. The most recent monographs to date are 
Frey, Tod, Seelenglaube und Seelenkult ini alien Israel {iSgS>) ; and Griin- 
eisen, Der Ahnenkultiis und die Urreligion Israels {i<^oo). 

' As we are here considering only the Patriarchal stories, a complete enu- 
meration of the early sanctuaries is not attempted. A copious list is given 
by Freiherr von Gall, Altisraelitische JCultstatten (1898). 

«Gen. 20 3-7, 3129, 355. 



48 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

the destruction of Sodom is made to account for the situation. 
Esau was the older brother of Jacob — why should he have the less 
desirable country? The saga accused him of selling his birth- 
right, or told how Jacob was shrewd enough to cheat him of the 
blessing. The dismissal of Ishmael and of the sons of Keturah 
to the Arabian wilderness confirms Jacob's title to the country. 
Jacob's covenant with Laban seems to embody the idea that 
Israelites and Arameans should respect the boundary cairn in 
Gilead and live in peace with each other. Isaac's treaty with the 
Philistines secures the title to some wells in the South Country. 
Abraham's purchase of Machpelah and Jacob's purchase of land 
at Shechem are designed to authenticate the title of their descen- 
dants. 

Care for purity of blood was early reinforced by religious mo- 
tives. From this point of view we understand Abraham's anxiety 
to secure one of his kinswomen as a wife for Isaac. The same 
motive sends Jacob to Laban. It seems a little curious that Ta- 
mar the Canaanitess should be made so prominent — we can ac- 
count for the prominence only by supposing that her loyalty to 
duty made her worthy to rank with the best of Israel's mothers. 
A reaction against Canaan itish religion is perhaps seen in the 
story of the sacrifice of Isaac, for the lesson of the story in its 
present form is that Yahweh does not require sacrifice of the 
first-born, but accepts an animal instead. 

What has been said is enough to show that we have no really 
historical knowledge of a patriarchal period preceding Israel's 
conquest of Canaan. The individuals, Abraham, Isaac, and Ja- 
cob, are eponyms — personifications of clans, tribes, or ethnologi- 
cal groups — and they are nothing more. But, as the religious 
mind is reluctant to give up the flesh and blood reality of these 
figures, it may repay us to review the evidence once more. The 
following positions seem to be established : 

The earliest literature we have is conscious that the sons of 
Israel of which it speaks (Reuben, Judah, and the others) are 
only personifications of the tribes which inhabit Canaan. But if 
these are personifications, then a fortiori Israel himself is a per- 
sonification, and the more remote ancestors can have no more 
substantial existence than the nearer one. 

The state of the country, indicated by the patriarchal stories, is 
contrary to fact. The only immigration possible in the Amarna 



THE PATRIARCHS 49 

period, was a warlike invasion, such as actually took place at 
the conquest — not a peaceable sojourn like that of Abraham. 

The nature of the information given by the stories is such that 
we cannot suppose it handed down by any valid historical proc- 
ess — family gossip known only to the immediate members of the 
family does not pass accurately from one generation to another 
for six hundred years or more. 

The stories we are considering are parallel to folk-stories which 
are preserved to us in other regions — aetiological legends, sagas, 
l)oetic transformations of historical events. The religious imagi- 
nation especially delights in such compositions. 

Arab usage is in line with what we are here assuming for 
Israel. The clan is spoken of as an individual, its members are 
his sons, related clans are his brothers or sisters, the alliance of 
two clans is presented as a marriage, the larger group of which 
the clan is a part is called the father or grandfather (sometimes 
the mother or grandmother) of the clans of which it is made up. 
On the ground of this analogy we should be justified in making 
the wives of the Patriarchs into clans or groups of clans. So the 
sons of Rachel are the two tribes Joseph and Benjamin ; Rachel 
herself is simply the earlier tribe which divided into two ; Joseph, 
as we know, afterward subdivided into Ephraim and Manasseh. 

Biblical usage is quite clear in regard to the name Israel, which 
in an overwhelming number of cases is used as the name of the 
nation. Jacob is the synonym of Israel, and in the earlier litera- 
ture occurs in the poetic passages almost exclusively. 

This brings us to a significant fact ; the importance of the 
Patriarchs as individual figures dates from the post-exilic, or at 
least post-Deuteronomic, period. We can see that it was natural 
for the people, in times of reversal, and when their hold on their 
homeland was precarious, to emphasize the promises made to the 
forefathers. The significance of these men increases, therefore, 
in the post-exilic period, and down to the New Testament times. 
A striking fact is, that none of the prophets allude to Abraham 
until we come to Ezekiel.^ The weight of this in an inquiry 
into the historicity of the Patriarchs can hardly be overestimated. 

The fact is, that a single sentence in the account of Abraham 
appealed to the Apostle Paul, and the Patriarch thus became an 

^ The present text shows two passages, Mic. 7 ^o and Jer. S3 ^^ but both are 
in confessedly late additions to the prophetic text. 



50 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

important figure in Christian theology. Recent authors who at- 
tempt to rescue the histo-ricity of the Father of the Faithful are 
obliged to make so many modifications in their account of him, 
that they deprive us of his religious value. ^ 

Our conclusion is that there is no sufficient warrant for sup- 
posing individuals Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to have been the 
ancestors of the people. That Jacob or Israel was the name of a 
clan (or that they were the names of two separate clans) seems to 
be made out. Isaac and Abraham are as yet unaccounted for 
— that is, we know of no tribes or clans that bore these names. 
Probably both were creations of the legend-building imagination 
working under the necessities of the patriarchal theory. Isaac 
represents the unity of Israel and Edom ; Abraham represents a 
larger unity — the early Israelites were conscious of their relation- 
ship with Moab, Ammon, Ishmael, Midian, Edom, and other tribes 
of the region. This implies that all these peoples had a common 

^ Cornill, in his recently published sketch of the history of Israel, assumes 
that the Semitic migration from Mesopotamia about 1500 B.C. was headed by 
a chieftain named Abraham. This author seems to be conscious that it is 
illogical to assert the historicity of Abraham while sacrificing that of Isaac 
and Jacob {Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 30). In fact, the Abraham of such 
a hypothesis is not the Abraham of our Bibles, and to recover the name of a 
single chieftain in the great migration must be confessed to be a matter of 
minor importance. Paton supposes Abram and Abraham to have been two 
distinct individuals {Early History of Syria and Palestine, p. 41 f. ). 
Abram he supposes to have been a chieftain of the Amorites who migrated 
to Palestine about 2250 B.C. Ryle (in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, 
s. V.') also regards Abraham as leader of a great nomadic movement, but 
regards his story as mainly a picture of the relationship of Arab tribes and 
clans to the Hebrew stock. Kent {History of the Hebrew People, I, p. ii) 
speaks only of the traditions of the Patriarchs as patron saints. Other recent 
historians prefer to pass very lightly over the stories of the Patriarchs, and to 
begin their narratives with the sojourn in Egypt, for example Budde, Reli- 
gion of Israel ; Ottley, Short History of the Hebrews. I have cited what may 
fairly be called conservative scholars, so that the reader may have a fair 
view of the consensus of opinion. Wade {Old Testametit History) finds it 
difficult to regard the patriarchal records, taken as a whole, as completely 
trustworthy, but believes many of the figures in them to be real characters. 
On the other hand, Winckler {Geschichte Israels, II, pp. 23 f. , 28) finds in 
Abraham the moon-god, or Tammuz (Adonis) the son of the moon-god, and 
finds this theory confirmed by Gen. 14, which he thinks a Babylonian myth. 
Kenan, History of the People of Israel, I, p. 63) represents an older stage of 
speculation when he identifies Abraham with the pater Orchatmis (Ab-Or- 
cham) of early mythology, whose name is preserved to us by Ovid. 



THE PATRIARCHS §1 

ancestor. A natural name for such an ancestor would be Father- 
of-a-crowd-of-nations, which the Hebrew author thinks to be the 
meaning of the name Abraham. The precarious nature of Bibli- 
cal etymologies is admitted on all hands. But until a more 
probable derivation for the name Abraham is put forward, we may 
accept this one. In this case Abraham is a genealogical con- 
struction originating in the necessities of the early theory of his- 
tory. It is possible that the other name of the Patriarch, Abram, 
which means Exalted- Father^ is a similar invention intended to 
mean Great Ancestor. 

It is not strictly correct to say that the sagas give us no his- 
torical results. What they reveal to us is this : the group of 
peoples of which Israel was one were immigrants from the East ; 
they were nomads till they settled in Palestine ; they amalga- 
mated more or less thoroughly with the Canaanites. If these 
results seem meagre we must remember that literature has other 
than a directly historical value. Abraham as a type of the be- 
liever in God reveals the religious faith of the author who drew 
his picture. The manners, morals, and religion of the Patriarchs 
really existed in the Israel of a later period. The authors who 
could charm us with the story of Joseph have established their 
kinship with universal human nature. 



CHAPTER IV 

EGYPT AND THE DESERT 

As every reader of the Bible knows, the received history of 
Israel makes Jacob and his family go down to Egypt to the num- 
ber of seventy souls. Here they are nourished during the famine 
and establish themselves in the land. During the years of Jo- 
seph's life they prosper and increase. Change of dynasty (so we 
may interpret) puts them into the power of a king who has no 
feelings of gratitude toward Joseph, and who fears the power of 
the growing people. His fear that they may make an alliance 
with future invaders (from Syria, of course) makes him take ex- 
traordinary measures to check their growth. He reduces them to 
forced labour, putting them at the hard work of making bricks. 
This measure proves unavailing, and he is driven to more drastic 
expedients, nothing less than the slaying of all male infants as 
soon as born or in the act of birth. During the time when this 
cruel decree is in force Moses is born. After exposure by his 
mother he is discovered and adopted by Pharaoh's daughter. 
When grown to manhood his too lively sympathy with his 
oppressed brethren brings him into danger and results in his 
flight to Midian. Here, after some time, he is commissioned to 
deliver his people. His demand for their liberation is repeatedly 
refused, but the refusal is in each case followed by a signal mani- 
festation of the divine wrath. The culmination is the death of 
the first-born in every Egyptian family, under the impression of 
which the people are thrust out. But the quick change of mind 
on the part of the king threatens to undo what has been done, 
especially as the fugitives get ^'entangled in the land." The 
new perplexity is solved, however, by a new deliverance, and an 
added stroke is inflicted upon the oppressor. 

The crossing of the Red Sea opens the era of the desert wan- 
derings. The immediate dearth of food is met by a miraculous 
supply ; the equally trying lack of water is overcome by a similar 
act of God. The Bedawin dispute the way, but are successfully 

52 



EGYPT AND THE DESERT 53 

overcome. At the Mount of God a covenant is ratified amid 
convulsions of nature. The Book of the Covenant is adopted, 
only to be immediately forgotten by the j^eople. The command 
for the erection of the Tabernacle is given with great particular- 
ity, but is interrupted by the trying incident of the golden 
calf. A new decalogue, different from the one given forty days 
or eighty days earlier, is engraved on tables of stone. After 
vengeance is taken for the crime of idolatry an elaborate ritual 
law is given to Moses. The people then journey to Kadesh, on 
the southern border of Palestine, where they sojourn for a long 
time. 

The narrative thus summarised is in many places confused and 
over-full. Its numerical data are exaggerated and impossible. 
Its contradictions and inconsistencies have often been pointed out. 
The careful reader will discover that in the narrative as it 
stands, Moses goes up to the mountain as many as seven times. 
He will discover also frequent duplicates, such as the revelation 
of the divine Name, Ex. 3 ^"^^ and 6 ^"^. In some cases a section 
is injected into the narrative in such a way as to break asunder 
what was once continuous ; so the little paragraph of the circum- 
cision, 4 ^*"^^, and the genealogy which ends ' ' this is that Moses 
and Aaron," 6 ^^ As in the earlier narratives that we have exam- 
ined, these phenomena indicate composite origin. Rightly to 
estimate the material we must endeavour to separate the docu- 
ments. In this endeavour we shall discover that the most glaring 
improbabilities are the property of the priestly writer — his disre- 
gard of limitations of space and time are evident in this as in 
other parts of his work. It is his love of symmetry which divides 
Moses's life into three equal periods of forty years each. He it 
is who dates the exodus four hundred and thirty years to a 
day from the immigration of Jacob and his sons. He it is, also, 
who not only gives the number of six hundred thousand adult 
males for Israel, but confirms these figures by an elaborate census 
of the twelve tribes.^ 

' The numerical impossibilities of the narrative are set forth by Colenso 
in the first volume of his Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Exam- 
ined, London, 1862. On the method of desert travelling notice Doughty, 
Arabia Deserta, I, pp. 7 and 61. Professor George F. Moore has called my 
attention to Ibn Chal-dun's criticism of the figures given by Masudi in his 
history of the exodus, which were borrowed, of course, from Jewish sources. 



54 <JLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

This late document being laid aside, we may suppose that the 
other authors thought of the people who left Egypt as being com- 
paratively a small number.^ There is, of course, no historical 
improbabihty in a nomad clan's taking refuge in Egypt, espe- 
cially in the land of Goshen, which bordered on the desert and was 
suitable for pastoral life. The Bedawin have always looked with 
longing eyes (as all history shows) at the rich pastures of Egypt. 
The tradition of Abraham's going there to sojourn, the Ishmael- 
ite or Midianite caravans that traded thither, show how acces- 
sible the country was. To guard against too frequent or too 
violent incursions of this kind, the Egyptian monarchs early for- 
tified the isthmus of Suez. To pass the fortifications required 
the permission of the authorities ; with good reason, therefore, the 
story makes Joseph ask leave of the Pharaoh for the settlement 
of his brothers. In the Egyptian monuments we have record of 
an Edomite tribe asking and receiving permission to pass the 
fortifications in order to pasture their cattle on the land of Pha- 
raoh.'* In fact it was the most natural thing in the world for 
the nomads to be attracted to Egypt, especially from Beersheba 
and the South Country. 

But the Egyptologists as yet have discovered on the monu- 
ments no evidence of a Joseph or an Israel in Egypt, as they 
have discovered none of the oppression or the exodus. We are 
therefore obliged to look narrowly at the evidence of the Hebrew 
sources. Here we might plead the tradition of Abraham's visit just 
alluded to, of Isaac's sojourn in the land of the Philistines (which 
may have been tributary to Egypt), of Joseph's being sold to an 
Egyptian courtier, and finally in all three documents the extended 
account of the sojourn and deliverance. We may acknowledge 

Cf. Ibn Chaldun's Prolegomena (1311), p. 6 f. The analysis of the Hexateuch 
is attempted in works already cited, to which may be added Bacon's Triple 
Tradition of the Exodus^ Hartford, 1 894. 

' Some critics do indeed attribute to J the statement (Ex. 12 ^") that "Is- 
rael journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand foot- 
men, besides children." But the verse is suspicious. Baentsch ascribes it 
to P {Exodus, p. 104), while Holzinger {Exodus, p. 35) and Addis think the 
original number has been enlarged ; so apparently Carpenter and Battersby, 
Hexateuch, II, p. 98. 

^ W. M. Miiller, Asien und Europa nach Altdgyptischen Denkmdlern 
(1893), p. 135. The Bedawin are \\^x& q.2\\^^ clans of Edom. A reference 
to the Seirites is given in the same connexion. 



EGYPT AND THE DESERT 55 

the historic probability, also, that a tribe once within the power 
of the Pharaoh should be forced on to the public works, and should 
make a successful revolt. On the other hand, we must not seek 
confirmation for the Biblical story at the hand of Manetho/ His 
account is to the effect that at one time Egypt was invaded by 
foreigners who established themselves in a city called Avaris, and 
kept the power five hundred years. After this time they were 
expelled, and to the number of two hundred and forty thousand 
journeyed through the wilderness from Egypt to Syria. Here 
from fear of the Assyrians they built a city large enough to con- 
tain so many myriads of men and called it Jerusalem. These 
foreigners he calls Hyksos.^ What foreign dynasties ruled in 
Egypt does not concern us here. All we need to notice is 
that Manetho, writing in the Greek period, was influenced by 
current tradition derived from the Jews, when he made the ex- 
pelled Hyksos go to Palestine and build Jerusalem. Another 
story cited from Manetho identifies the Israelites with the lepers 
and unclean whom an Egyptian king set to work in the quar- 
ries. These unfortunates were led to revolt by one Osarsiph, a 
priest who was among them. Their temporary triumph was 
due to an alliance with the Hyksos of Jerusalem, and their 
final expulsion brought them to that city. It must be evident 
that no use can be made of this legend in a history of Israel. 
The story seems to be a pure invention, prompted by Egyptian 
hatred for the Jews. 

As external sources fail us we turn again to the Biblical narra- 
tive. The unhistorical scheme of the priestly writer being left 
aside, we examine the story of J and E. Beyond the statement 
that the small clan of Jacob went to Egypt and remained there 
three generations, that they .were forced to labour on the public 
works, and that they succeeded in regaining the wilderness under 
tiie leadership of Moses, we find little that commands our confi- 
dence. That the Egyptian authorities should want to keep them 
in the land is probable enough. That the oppression was mo- 

' See Josephus, Against Apion, I, 14, 15, 26-31. The credibility of 
Manetho is discussed at length by Hengstenberg, Die Biicher Moseys tend 
Egypten (1841), pp. 236-277. The latest treatment of the story is by Willrich, 
Jiiden und Griechen vor der Makkabiiischen Erhebung (1895), pp. 53-56. 

' Bedawin kings or shepherd kings is Manetho's translation, which seems 
to be correct ; of. MiiUer, Asien und Eiiropa, p. 132. 



56 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

tived by fear is hardly likely — fear would have led to their expul- 
sion beyond the fortifications.^ 

As we have had occasion to notice, the tradition behind the 
two documents we are considering is one. The two writers 
follow substantially the same order of events. But differences 
of detail show how far the tradition was from being fixed. 
For example, one document makes the people of Israel settled 
by themselves in the district of Goshen. The other thinks of 
them as living in the cities (or a city) in close contact with 
their Egyptian neighbours, from whom they can borrow jewels 
at short notice. One knows of Moses's exposure, rescue, and 
adoption in the family of Pharaoh.^ The other seems to have in- 
troduced him abruptly into the narrative when already a man. 
Both, however, know of his flight into Midian, and account for 
it by an abortive attempt to help his brethren.^ Both make him 
receive a revelation of Yahweh in the desert, though one sup- 
poses that the name Yahweh had been before unknown, while the 
other thinks of it as known from antediluvian times.* One of 
the sources gives Aaron to Moses as his helper ; the other seems 
not to have known him. One makes Moses receive a magic 
wand from Yahweh Himself at the Bush, and by means of this 
he works the miracles. The other narrates that the miracles 
are announced by Moses, but wrought by the direct act of 
God. 

It is altogether probable that the sources are right in dating a 
religious epoch from the exodus. The religious motive is so in- 
terwoven with the life of Israel that each popular movement was 
a religious movement. The enthusiasm of a prophet alone seems 
able to nerve an oriental people to a great effort. This is well illus- 
trated in the co-operation of Moses and Aaron : Moses is told that 
he shall be a god to Aaron and that Aaron will be his prophet. 

' That part of the isthmus of Suez which was not rendered impassable by 
marshes or lakes was defended by a wall and garrison, as already noted. 

2 A curious parallel to the exposure of Moses in a basket is found in the 
annals of Sargon T. Cf. McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, 
I, p. 99, and Keilinschr. Bibliothek, III, pp. 101-103. 

^ So we must suppose, though the attempt as related by J has been lost in 
the process of combining the documents. 

* According to J (Gen. 4 ^^) the name Yahweh was known to Enosh, the 
grandson of Adam. The theory of E that it was revealed first to Moses is 
quite clear from Ex. 3 ^3. 



EGYPT AND THE DESERT 57 

The commanding position of the recipient of a divine revelation is 
nowhere more strikingly set forth. How Moses came into this 
position we can no longer certainly make out. That in his des- 
ert wandering he heard a divine voice, and had a theophany of 
flame, is not without parallel.^ Elijah also had a revelation at 
Mount Horeb, and John the Baptist received his call in a wil- 
derness sojourn. In what connexion the new name of Yahweh 
stands with the Midianites, among whom Moses sojourns, is not 
clear. The most obvious hypothesis is that Yahweh was the an- 
cestral God of Midi an, with whom Moses became acquainted, 
faith in whom led to the endeavour to deliver Israel. The name 
Yahweh gives no light on the problem.^ 

A distinct section of the narrative is concerned with the 
plagues sent upon Egypt by Yahweh. In the current text these 
are ten in number, but the analysis shows that no single source 
had so many. All of them (except the death of the first-born) 
are such visitations as the land of Egypt is subject to from its situ- 
ation and climate.^ Their object is variously given by the dif- 
ferent writers. One assumes that they are to punish Pharaoh's 
refusal to let the people go : another makes them demonstrations 
of the power of Yahweh ; the third presents them as stages in the 
contest between Yahweh and the gods of Egypt. The earliest 
document (J) makes the plagues seven in number : an epidemic 
among the fish of the Nile, an enormous number of frogs, swarms 
of flies, a murrain among cattle, a violent hail, an invasion of lo- 
custs, and the death of the first-born. The narrative of E duplicates 
the hail, the locusts, and the death of the first-born, and adds the 
turning of the Nile into blood and the darkness, both which 
seem to have a basis in the natural phenomena of the country. 

^ One is reminded of the sidra tree of Mohammed — Koran 53 '*. 

' The etymology of Ex. 3 ^* expresses only the view of the writer, and can 
hardly put us into possession of the real meaning of a name so ancient. Be- 
sides this, the author's language is obscure, so that we do not know whether 
he meant to predicate of Yahweh self-existence (uncaused), self-determina- 
tion, sovereignty, or unsearchableness. Conjectures are recorded in many 
commentaries and Biblical theologies, the latest to date by Holzinger {Ex- 
odus, p. 13 f.) and Baentsch {Exodus, p. 23). 

'This is well brought out by an article, " Die Plagen Egyptens." in the 
Christliche Welt, X (1896), No 45. The author shows also, that the se- 
quence of the plagues is that m which the natural phenomena come in the 
Egyptian seasons. 



58 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

The red colour of the Nile at the opening of the inundation is 
one of the things which impress every observer. The darkness 
may be an exaggeration of the sand-storms which obscure the at- 
mosphere. P chooses only a part of those narrated by his pre- 
decessors and makes a change in two of them to increase their 
efficacy.^ Both J and P make the death of the first-born the oc- 
casion for instituting the passover festival. 

The endeavour has often been made to defend the Mosaic au- 
thorship of the account by showing its intimate acquaintance with 
things Egyptian. To appreciate the real force of this argument 
we must remember the relation in which Palestine always stood 
to Egypt. We might compare it to the relation of Wales to 
England or of Switzerland to France. Canaan, as the smaller 
country, always looked up to Egypt as its powerful neighbour. 
Egyptian influence always extended thither. Often Egypt was 
the real or nominal possessor of the country. An Egyptian party 
was always found at the court of Israel. There is no period of 
the history, therefore, in which an intelligent Israelite could be ig- 
norant of Egyptian conditions and Egyptian customs. Doubtless 
a journey to Egypt was made by every man that travelled from 
Palestine for business, education, or pleasure. When we consider 
these facts, the wonder is that the Pentateuch knows so little of 
things Egyptian. The Pharaohs of the narrative are all called 
Pharaoh, but no one of them is brought before us by his indi- 
vidual name. This is in striking contrast with the later histori- 
cal books of the Canon, which know quite well their Shishak, 
Necho, and Hophra. Here we ask in vain even for the dynasty 
to which Joseph's patron belonged, or to which belonged the op- 
pressor and the father of Moses's adopted mother. The contest 
between Yahweh and the Egyptian gods is referred to, but no 
one of these gods is brought before us by name. The peculiari- 
ties of the Egyptian religion are so marked, and its contrasts to 
the religion of Israel are so violent, that we never cease to won- 
der at the reticence of the authors. How easy it would have 
been for them to show by a concrete example the impotence of 
Apis and Mnevis ! The ram of Mendes, the crocodiles of Ombos, 

^ The flies become to him gnats ; the murrain on cattle is changed to 
boils (? small-pox) among men. On the difi"erences between the documents 
in the matter of the plagues, cf. Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch 
(1897), p. 148. 



EGYPT AND THE DESERT 59 

the obelisks and statues of the various temples might be made to 
point a contrast between the God of Israel and the objects of 
Egyptian bUnd devotion, such as would adorn the tale as well as 
point a much-needed moral for times to come. But we read 
nothing of this kind. In a writer who had lived in the midst of 
these abominations^ this would be incomprehensible. The ab- 
sence of local colour evident in every chapter of the narrative, 
then, forbids us to attribute these documents to an author brought 
up in Egypt. And when we look at those resemblances between 
Egyptian and " Mosaic" institutions w^hich have been industri- 
ously collected and persistently urged, we find that they are no 
more than are discovered in comparing the religion of Israel with 
other early religions. 

It is easy to show that at other points than religion, the 
Hebrew author had naive conceptions of things Egyptian. We 
can hardly suppose that the Pharaoh ever lived in so little state 
as to be accessible to Moses and Aaron whenever they chose to 
seek an interview. Was the capital ever at Rameses or Succoth 
— or did the king come thither to oversee the Israelite labour? 
Did the Princess Royal regularly take her bath in the Nile? 
Does the Nile flow through the land of Goshen? Such questions 
readily suggest themselves. The difficulty in answering them 
shows that we have to do with a picture many of whose details 
are drawn from the wTiter's imagination rathe!" than from his 
knowledge of Egypt. Examination of the proper names which 
occur in the narrative shows us scarcely any that are necessarily 
Egyptian. That of Moses himself is usually so classed. But the 
Hebrew narrator did not so regard it, for he gives it a Hebrew 
etymology.' In the genealogies of P we do find an occasional 
Egyptian name; thus Aaron's son Eleazar marries the daughter 
of a man with an Egyptian name, and he calls his son also by an 

• The puzzling expression in Ex. ?>-'^,for we shall sacrifice the abomina- 
tion of the Egyptians, may show that the author knew of Egyptian worship 
of bulls and rams, for these were the sacrificial animals of Israel. Did he 
perhaps write, tve shall sacrifice the gods of the Egyptians ? This would 
best suit the context, and a zealous scribe might readily substitute the word 
that better expressed his own feelings. 

- The name is undoubtedly older than the story of the daughter of Pha- 
raoh. It does not seem violent, therefore, to revive a conjecture now dis- 
credited, that it was given to Moses as the Deliverer (literally Drawer-oiit 
of his people. 



6o OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Egyptian name.^ In the same connexion we find a name which 
may be that of the Egyptian god Osiris. But these indications 
in the latest of our documents cannot be made the basis of an 
argument. Finally, the absence of any conception of Egyptian 
history, its successive dynasties, its relations with Canaan and 
the Sinaitic peninsula, points in the same direction.^ 

The climax of the story is the crossing of the Red Sea. But 
the narrative here shows the same perplexing combination of dif- 
ferent features that we have met in the earlier account. P, with 
the exactness of detail that marks his narrative elsewhere, makes 
the people march from Rameses to Succoth, thence to Etham in 
the edge of the ^yilderness ; then they make a sharp turn and 
camp by the sea before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea 
opposite Baal Zephon.^ Unfortunately our knowledge of the 
localities is not sufficient to enable us to identify the route thus 
marked out. That it is intended to emphasise the miracle by 
bringing Israel into a situation from which escape seems impos- 
sible, is evident. The result will be the greater glory to Yahweh. 
The older documents are much less definite. The earhest one 
(J) simply tells us that Israel marched to the border with the 
pillar of cloud before them. When Pharaoh discovered that 
they were leaving the land with no purpose of returning, he pur- 
sued with his army. To relieve the terror of Israel the pillar of 
cloud guarded fhe rear against the approaching enemy. Mean- 
while a strong wind was driving back the waters of the sea so 
that in the morning th<j bed of the sea was dry. The destruction 

^ Ptitiel and Phinehas, Ex. 6 ^^. The name Phinehas occurs again in the 
family of Eli. Whatever Egyptian influence may have been at work in the 
period of Samuel there can be, here, no question of an Egyptian sojourn 
(i Sam. I ^). 

^ The reader may consult an article by Professor Toy in the N'eiu World 
for 1893, pp. 121-141. The Egyptian features of the Pentateuch have been 
diligently emphasised by scholars, either to prove the Mosaic authorship of 
the Pentateuch or to disprove the originality of the Mosaic revelation. 
Especially persistent has been the attempt to connect Hebrew and Egyptian 
religion. The earlier essays of the kind were laboriously refuted by Wit- 
sius in his ^gyptiaca (Amsterdam, 1696), and his contention has been 
upheld by recent investigation. On Egyptian religion, cf. Wiedemann, 
Religion of the Ancient Ei^yptians (1897). 

^Ex. 14 ^-"^ The account intimates that the route was one not natural 
for the people to take, and that the purpose was to entice Pharaoh to destruc- 
tion. 



EGYPT AND THE DESERT 6l 

of the Egyptians was accomplished by the returning flood tide. 
It is vain to inquire for the particular point at which this author 
supposed the crossing to take place. The great variety of the- 
ories that have been held shows the insufficiency of the data.^ 
That no actual occurrence lies at the basis of the account would 
be too much to say. In the present state of our knowledge 
we cannot make a more definite statement about it than this : 
Early Hebrew tradition relates a sojourn in Egypt and a remark- 
able deliverance under Moses. The Song of Deliverance is a late 
insertion in the text, and besides adds nothing to the prose 
description. 

The object of bringing Israel out of Egypt is that they may 
worship at the Mount of God where Moses had his revelation. 
There seems no reason to doubt that this was the point, three 
days' journey in the wilderness, to visit which Pharaoh's consent 
was asked by Moses. The perplexity which has compassed our 
efforts to define the events of the exodus is still encountered as 
we inquire for the site of this mountain. At least three sacred 
spots are named at which Israel met its God. These are Sinai, 
Horeb, and Kadesh. That Sinai and Horeb are different names 
for the same mountain is possible, but when we observe that the 
two names characterise different documents we are led to suspect 
that they were originally different places which have been forci- 
bly brought into connexion in the process of uniting the tradi- 
tions into one story. As in other cases, the most circumstantial 
narrative is the one which is latest in order of time. 

It is significant that one of the oldest fragments continues the 
account by adding immediately after the crossing of the Sea: 
** Then Moses made the Bene Israel march from the Red Sea, and 
they went forth into the Wilderness of Shur and marched three 

1 It is in itself suspicious that the youngest document should have the 
most detailed information. Our one fixed point is the uniform tradition 
that Israel was settled in Goshen. This district is clearly identified as the 
eastern part of the present Wadi Tiunilat. Rameses seems to have been at 
the western end of this district. Etham will then be a point at the eastern 
end "in the edge of the desert." The present tendency is to identify Pithom 
and Etham. Pi-hahiroth, Migdol, and Baal Zephon are, however, still obscure. 
Careful articles on the Exodus and Goshen are given by Hastings's Diction- 
ary of the Bible and the Encyclopedia Biblica. The localities are treated 
also in the commentaries and in numerous other works ; compare the refer- 
ences in the articles just named. 



62 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

days in the Wilderness without finding water." The Wilderness 
of Shur is known to us as the district lying immediately east of 
the isthmus of Suez. It is evidently the thought of the author 
that the Israelites marched straight eastward. The objective 
point in his narrative has been displaced in the compilation, but 
we can hardly doubt that it was Kadesh. It is significant, also, 
that at Marah, after the sweetening of the water '^ He gave him 
statutes and judgments, and there He tested him." This was 
precisely what was done at Sinai, according to the received ac- 
count. It does not seem violent to suppose that this earliest 
writer meant by Marah, whose waters were sweetened, the foun- 
tain of Kadesh, but that the name Kadesh has been excluded 
from the narrative in the interest of harmony. The clause there 
He tested him is an evident allusion to the testing which gave its 
name to the place Massah. But Massah is identified with Meri- 
bah,^ which is certainly at Kadesh. On the ground of these in- 
dications we are justified in assuming that the earliest traditions 
made Israel journey from Egypt directly to Kadesh. There they 
sojourned for a considerable time, Moses acting as their oracle 
and leader, and thence they made the first attack upon Canaan. 
Kadesh is in fact the only point in the whole region where a con- 
siderable clan can find sustenance for its flocks. We may easily 
suppose that the earliest narrative made Amalek dispute the pos- 
session of this oasis with Israel.^ 

In favour of Kadesh as the original sanctuary we may quote 
the following passage from the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy : 

" Yahweh came from Sinai 
And beamed forth unto them from Seir : 
He shone forth from Paran 
And came from Meribath Kadesh." ^ 

' Ex. 17 1-8. The location of Meribah in Kadesh is well established by 
Num. 20 13, 27 l^ Ezek. 47 ^^, 48 28. 

' Rephidim, where Amalek fought with Israel (Ex. 17 ^^^), is mentioned 
in direct connexion with Massah and Meribah. Perhaps too much stress 
should not be laid upon Judges 1 1 1^, where the interpolator gives Egypt, the 
Red Sea, and Kadesh as the three stations of the wanderings of Israel, making 
no mention of Sinai. 

2 It is admitted by recent commentators that Meribath Kadesh is the orig- 
inal reading of the last two words. With this verse (Deut. :^2t *) compare 
32 ^^ Dillmann in his commentary refers to Ewald, who claims {Jahrbiicher 
der Bibl. Wissenschaft, III, p. 234) to have discovered the reading many 
years before 185 1. 



EGYPT AND THE DESERT 63 

The verse looks like an attempt to combine various traditions 
concerning the ancient residence of Israel's God. Kadesh is the 
climax of the verse, and while we might account for the mention 
of Sinai and Seir as indicating the general region from which 
Yahweh approached Palestine, Kadesh can be brought in only 
because of a definite tradition connected with it. 

In the Ode of Deborah the seat of Yahweh from which He 
comes to rescue His people is Seir and the field of Edom} It is 
possible that we have here an entirely divergent tradition. But, 
on the other hand, it is possible that the field of Edom once 
extended so far westward as to include Kadesh. Without laying 
too much stress upon this, we should not forget that the rock 
from which Moses brought water is at Kadesh, according to the 
original tradition in both forms. ^ This tradition is in fact a 
legend which arose in connexion with the sacred fountain. For 
at Kadesh a copious spring gushes forth from the base of a small 
hill of solid rock. In accordance with ancient Semitic religion 
such a spring and the rock from which it issues would certainly 
be held sacred.^ 

Moses established his clan here, himself acting as minister of 
the oracle. At this stage of religious development every God 
assists his worshippers by revelations. And these revelations 
concern the practical affairs of life. Disputes between tribesmen 
were settled by ''bringing them before God." Hence the 
sanctuaries of repute always have a priest whose business it is to 
receive and transmit the decisions of the divinity. In one of our 
accounts Moses is represented as hearing and deciding cases from 
morning to evening. This function belongs to him because he 

^ Judges, 5 *. The mention of Sinai in the next verse seems to be an inter- 
polation; cf. Moore and Budde on the passage. 

^ Ex. 17^ mentions Horeb, but this is an interpolation, as is shown by 
Baentsch {Handkommentar). The parallel account, Num. 20 ^"^, locates the 
event at Kadesh. 

^ On Kadesh we have the elaborate monograph, Kadesh Barnea, by Trum- 
bull (1884), where earlier authorities are discussed. The description of 
Rowlands is there quoted in full (p. 214 f.), and confirmed by Trumbull's 
own observation (p. 273). On sacred fountains among the Semites, cf. 
Baudissin, Studien ztir Semit. Religionsgeschichte , II, pp. 143-183. The 
Kenites with whom, according to one document, Moses was affiliated by 
marriage, certainly dwelt in the region of Kadesh, and Amalek, with whom 
Israel had a feud from the time of the Wandering, also belongs in the 
vicinity. 



64 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

has the counsel of Yahweh. The Hebrew word for priest shows 
that the man so designated was the organ of divine revelations. 
The irony of history is illustrated when the later writers deny 
the priesthood to Moses. It is not difficult to suppose that 
the fountain of Kadesh received its name Fountain of Decision 
because of this oracle administered by Moses. Further evidence 
of Moses's connexion with Kadesh may be found in the fact that 
his Kenite father-in-law was at home in this region.^ 

While this is the oldest tradition concerning the desert sojourn, 
there can be no doubt that other accounts named Sinai and 
Horeb as sacred mountains. In a region like the Sinaitic penin- 
sula we should be surprised not to find a number of peaks viewed 
as seats of divinities. Nothing in our documents compels us to 
suppose Horeb and Sinai to be the same, or to make one name 
refer to the group and the other to a single peak. The elaborate 
attempts which have been made to fix upon one of the mountains 
in the Sinaitic group as the Mount of the Law are based upon 
the assumption that the data of P may be taken for history. 
When we surrender these data we are left with only the vaguest 
intimations. In the verse quoted above, Sinai is associated with 
Seir, Paran, and Kadesh. In sharp contrast with this conception 
is the one which identifies Sinai with a peak in Midian. Midian, 
so far as we know, always occupied the territory east of the 
Aelanitic gulf The Mount of God at which Moses received his 
call is put by E on the western edge of this district.^ As the 
mountain is also called Horeb by E, we can hardly help seeing 
here the same general view which, in relating the life of Elijah, 
makes him travel forty days from Beersheba to Horeb. But it 
is hopeless to try to reconcile this with the statement in our 
Deuteronomy that there are eleven days from Horeb to Kadesh 
Barnea. The latter statement again throws no light upon the 
Deuteronomist's location of Horeb. The divergence of the tra- 
ditions must be evident, and this divergence is just what we 
should expect in documents of different ages, all of them some 
centuries removed from the events which they treat. 

And if the chief points are so uncertain, it is clear that no satis- 
factory identification of the itinerary of the wandering can be 

1 Kadesh is apparently more than three days' march from Egypt. But it 
is impossible to base an argument on this till we know where the thre« days' 
march into the desert was to start from. 

2 Ex. 3 \ 



EGYPT AND THE DESERT 6$ 

hoped for. The attempts hitherto made have gone on the 
hypothesis that all the statements of the Biblical text are equally 
reliable.^ Thus there has grown up a tradition that the Israelites 
crossed the Red Sea at Suez, moved down the east shore of the 
Gulf of Suez to what is now known as Wadi Feiran, and then 
turned into the mountains, camping in the valley Er-Raha *' be- 
fore the Mount." This is doubtless the route which the traveller 
would take to reach the site which monkish tradition has fixed 
upon as sacred. But it must be remembered that the southern 
end of the peninsula is a mass of mountains, among which no 
single peak has claims to pre-eminence. That a caravan of even 
fifteen hundred people (which some regard as the original clan 
of Israel) could not find water on this road and that its cattle 
could not subsist there even in the spring — these are grave objec- 
tions to the hypothesis. And when we seek for historical evi- 
dence we find none. Few of the names given in the Hebrew 
narrative have survived, a fact w^hich can hardly surprise us when 
we remember that they are names of nomadic encampments 
merely. Those which are descriptive might be applied to 
different places — Mara/i, for example, would describe almost any 
of the springs or wells in the region, for almost all the water is 
brackish. But the most discouraging fact is the one already 
noted, that the detailed list of encampments is the work of the 
latest author in point of time, and is the product of his impossible 
theory of the wandering. 

Before we can correctly estimate the force of what has been 
said, we must recall to mind that the nation which reached its 
highest prosperity under Solomon was made by the combination 
of many different elements. No more than a fraction of Israel 
ever sojourned in the wilderness of Kadesh. That a fraction, and 
an important fraction, did so sojourn is clear from more than one 
indication. The story ofthe wandering is one indication. Another 
is the sense of kinship with Esau (Edom), Moab, Ammon, 
Midian, and Ishmael. The population of Arabia has always 

^ Modern descriptions of the peninsula begin with Burckhardt, Travels in 
Syria and the Holy Land (1822). The most elaborate attempts at identifi- 
cation were made by Robinson, Biblical Researches, Vol. I (Second Edition, 
1856). Compare also Palmer, Desert of the Exodus (1872), and Trumbull, 
Kadesh Barnea. Recent commentaries on the Pentateuchal books discuss 
the various hypotheses. 



66 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

pressed northward toward Syria. We may readily suppose — in 
fact it is difficult to suppose anything else — that these tribes (Esau, 
Moab, and Ammon) were a part of the great Arabic migration. 
The sojourners at Kadesh were in fact Edomite clans which 
were afterward a part of Judah, and so finally incorporated with 
Israel. Our sources, however, do not recognise a North 
Arabian kingdom of Mu^ri of which much is now said. 

The importance of this fraction of Israel is seen in the impress 
which their institutions made upon the nation of which they be- 
came a part.^ The desert has always favoured the tribal organ- 
isation of society, and this social organisation was so firmly 
fixed by the desert sojourn that it lasted in Israel long after the 
adoption of the agricultural life.^ The dwelhng in booths at the 
autumn festival is only one of the reminiscences of the desert so- 
journ. The law of blood-revenge, which is the only way of se- 
curing the public peace in the desert, continued in force in Israel 
long after it was a settled nation. 

The religion of the desert is polydaemonism. The jinn in- 
habit every rock and bush, and many of them receive worship 
from men. To a very late time Israel remembered that it had 
worshipped the hairy monsters that infest the desert.^ Totemism 
is one of the forms in which tribal man attempts to come into re- 
lation with superhuman powers. The vestiges of totemism which 
persist in the tribe names of Israel show that this people formed 
no exception to the rule. Circumcision is an original tribal 
mark, very probably originating in the desert. The earliest ac- 
count we have of its introduction in Israel dates it from the life 
of Moses.* In one of the desert encampments Yahweh meets 

^ Notice Buhl, Sociah Verhdltnisse der Hebrder^ pp. 1,9. It is possible 
that the clan of Jerachmeel was the original — or at least early — occupant 
of the Kadesh oasis. But I am not able to follow Prof. Cheyne in discover- 
ing numerous references to this clan in our documents ; see the article 
"Jerachmeel" in the EncyclopcBdia Biblica, and also the paper entitled 
" From Isaiah to Ezra " in the American Journal of Theology (July, 1901). 

"^ On traces of matriarchy in Israel see Gunkel, Genesis, p. 37 ; Buhl, 
Sociale Verhdltnisse, p. 28. 

^ Lev. 17^. Such passages show how wide of the mark is Renan's 
theory of a primitive monotheism of desert-dwelling tribes {History of the 
People of Israel, I, pp. 28, 38 ff.). 

* The reader will remember that the account of circumcision in Genesis 
is given by the latest author, while the one now under discussion is a part 
of the oldest tradition, embodied in J. 



EGYPT AND THE DESERT 6/ 

Moses and threatens to kill him. Zippora takes a sharp stone 
and circumcises her infant son, and touches her husband with the 
blood, whereat the wrath of the God is turned away/ The 
only plausible interpretation of the curious account is that cir- 
cumcision was the tribal mark which brought a man into right 
relations with the tribal divinity. Moses was a member of the 
tribe that owed allegiance to Yahweh — whether as an Israelite cr 
as adopted by the Kenites or Midianites we are not told — but he 
had not received the tribal mark. Hence the anger of the God, 
which was appeased by the circumcision of the substitute. We 
feel ourselves here to be in the circle of the most primitive ideas 
on this subject. The story can hardly mean to account for the 
origin of circumcision, but probably does mean to intimate that 
this was the first instance of its application to infants. The insti- 
tution itself, common to a number of Asiatic and African peoples, 
must date from a remote antiquity. 

The cycle of festivals which are enjoined in the later religion 
of Israel is connected with agricultural life, and cannot be associ- 
ated with the desert. The Passover in its primitive form is an 
exception. The Israelites were shepherds. The firstlings of the 
flock were probably sacrificed in the spring-time, as was the case 
among the Arabs down to a recent date.'^ To this extent He- 
brew tradition is correct in emphasising the Passover celebra- 
tion at the exodus. We may even conjecture that the sprinkling 
of the blood on the door-posts is a reminiscence of the time 
when the tent was sprinkled with blood as the opening rite of a 
warlike expedition.^ 

The Hebrew writers were unconscious of the extent to which 
their institutions were survivals from their nomad life. Their 
sense of the importance of the desert, however, is seen in their 
account of the Patriarchs, whom they pictured as ideals and who 
are in every case Bedawin. The Rechabites, who appear in later 
history, are witnesses to the same mode of thought. Their 
thought was that agriculture and settled habitations were contrary 

^Ex. 4^*-"^^. A good discussion of the subject is contained in Marti, 
Geschichte der Israelitischeyi Religion (1897), p. 43 f. 

^ W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 210, 387, 445 f.; Wellhausen, 
Reste Arahischeji Heidentiinis, p. 94 f. 

^ Traces of such a rite are found among the Arabs according to Marti, 
Geschichte der Israelitischen Religion, p. 40. 



6S OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

to the will of Yahweh. The only reason that can be assigned 
for this view is the fact that in the consciousness of the people 
Yahweh was God of the desert, and that the desert life was the 
life pleasing to Him. The fullest expression of this idea is the 
claim on the part of all our documents that at Sinai (or Kadesh) 
Yahweh entered into covenant with Israel. Before this He had 
chosen them and brought them out of Egypt; but the purpose 
of the choice was that the covenant might be made. In the 
oldest document the covenant seems to be a simple agreement 
that Yahweh will be the God of Israel, and that He will go 
before them and secure them in possession of Canaan : ' ' My 
presence shall go with thee and give thee rest." ^ 

The covenant implies some sort of obligation on the part of 
Israel. Obedience to the will of God is the natural requirement 
when a special relation has been established between Him and a 
people. This is the more obvious to the desert dweller, because 
all obligation apart from that of blood-revenge is, in a nomad 
society, the result of special agreement. We are not surprised, 
therefore, to find each of our documents giving a divine law in 
connexion with the wilderness sojourn. One has the well-known 
Decalogue ; another (or perhaps the same one) has the Book of 
the Covenant ; a third has a Decalogue of its own ; Deuteron- 
omy repeats the first Decalogue with modifications ; while the 
Priestly writer introduces at Sinai his whole elaborate legislation 
together with its portable sanctuary. The most primitive of 
these codes is doubtless the Decalogue of J.^ It consists of 
ritual commands, as we should expect in a religious compact. 
In its earliest form it seems to have read as follows : 

" Thou shall not make a molten God. 
Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread. 
Every male that opens the womb is mine. 
Six days shalt thou labour and on the seventh keep Sabbath. 
The feast of weeks thou shalt observe. 

^Ex. ZZ^^. The verse is ascribed to a later stratum of J, but it doubtless 
represents an early idea. The difficulty was to reconcile the continued resi- 
dence of Yahweh at Sinai with His journeying in Israel's company. One 
author therefore made Him send His angel, the other His presence (coun- 
tenance) in which He manifested Himself. 

'^ Ex. 34. The account is intelligible only on the hypothesis that the 
commands of the latter part of the chapter are the ones written upon the two 
tables of stone which Moses brings with him in the opening verses. 



EGYPT AND THE DESERT 69 

And the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year. 

Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven. 

And my Passover offering shall not remain until morning. 

The first-fruits of thy ground shalt thou bring to the house of Yah- 

weh thy God. 
Thou shalt not boil a kid with its mother's milk." 

The comparative antiquity of this Decalogue is made evident 
by the parallel between it and the closing section of the Book of 
the Covenant.^ That it is more primitive than the Decalogue 
of Ex. 20 and of Deuteronomy, must be evident. The latter 
shows the influence of the prophetic theology, especially in the 
prominence it gives to the duties of man toward man. Never- 
theless the commands here given cannot all go back to the desert 
period. The majority of them are intelligible only in connexion 
with an agricultural state of society. For example, the Sabbath 
cannot be observed by the shepherd, for his work requires daily 
attention. The feast of weeks and the feast of ingathering are 
feasts of the cultivator. We are driven, therefore, to the conclu- 
sion that this Decalogue, valuable as it is in giving us knowledge 
of Israelite religion after the settlement in Canaan, cannot give 
us knowledge of what took place before the conquest.^ If the 
original compact between Yahweh and Israel included a series of 
commands, we have no way of discovering what these were. On 
the other hand, we have no difficulty in supposing a covenant on 
the simple term of obedience to the voice of Yahweh speaking in 
His prophet. Moses was the living exponent of the divine will. 
At Marah (or Massah) he gave Israel a decree and a decision ; 
Jethro found him giving to the people ''the decisions of God 
and His instructions"; the original Tent of Meeting was the 
place where God talked with Moses; Kadesh is called En Mish- 
pat because of the habitual oracle there ministered by Moses. 
The divine afflatus descends not only upon Moses but upon 

^ This was pointed out by Bruston, Zeitschr, fur die Alttest. Wissensch., 
XII (1892), p. 181 ff. The passage in question is Ex. 23^^"^^ — apparently 
the displaced copy of J's first Decalogue. 

^ Whether ten was the number of commands in this series, or twelve as 
some suppose, cannot be definitely made out, as the passage has been repeat- 
edly worked over. Ten is so constant a number in the tradition that the 
presumption is in its favour here. A somewhat different arrangement from 
the one given above is found in Professor Briggs's instructive comparison of 
the different Decalogues, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch^^ (1897), pp. 
189-210. 



70 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

the seventy elders.* The thought of constant divine guidance 
through prophets or seers would militate against the giving of 
any extended law. All that a primitive covenant would natu- 
rally contain is an obligation to obey the will of Yahweh as it 
should be revealed in His prophet. Or shall we say that the 
original covenant was a promise that Yahweh would lead the 
people to conquest on condition that they would regularly give 
Him the first-born males of the flock ? The importance of the 
first-born in Hebrew tradition might justify such a theory, and it 
is certain that to a comparatively late date public opinion in Israel 
confided in the help of Yahweh because of the fact that the altars 
were abundantly supplied with victims. 

What, then, was the primitive covenant of the wilderness ? The 
mists of antiquity prevent our seeing distinctly, but we may 
reasonably suppose that the religious leader who had brought 
a nomad clan out of Egypt was able to impress upon them the 
faith that Yahweh had chosen them as His own, that He would 
lead them against their enemies, and that He would give them 
the fair land on which they had cast longing eyes. The nat- 
ural expression of such a faith would be a covenant, in which 
the different fractions of the people would renew their brotherhood 
and vow allegiance to Yahweh and His prophet. That this was 
a coalition of tribes, not all of which had known Yahweh earher, 
is very possible. It was in the territory of Midian that Moses 
first became acquainted with the new divinity. And in another 
account it is Jethro who offers the first sacrifice to Yahweh, of 
which Aaron and all the elders are invited to partake.^ The 
adoption of a new divinity by Israel would thus be in a certain 
sense the beginning of their history, and the importance given 
by tradition to the Mosaic age would be justified by the facts. 

The covenant with the people involves Yahweh' s journeying 
with them. Various statements in our sources embody the vary- 
ing traditions which grew up on this theory. The pillar of cloud 
and fire is one author's method. Another gives the promise of 
the angel who goes as Yahweh's representative. The Ark must 
originally have been a visible pledge of His presence, and the 

^ Num. 1 1 2*-^". The passage is ascribed to E 2, but I see no reason why 
it may not represent ancient ideas. 

2 Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile, p. 23 ; Giesebrecht, Die Ge' 
schichtlichkeit des Sinat Bundes (inconclusive). 



EGYPT AND THE DESERT 7I 

veritable place of His dwelling. The Tent of Tryst was origi- 
nally parallel to the Ark — not a dwelling-place for the Ark, but 
for Yahweh Himself. The Tabernacle of which we have such an 
elaborate description in the book of Exodus is a very late fic- 
tion, created by the theory of the Priestly author, who could not 
conceive the congregation of Israel existing without the central 
sanctuary. But this structure had as a prototype the earlier and 
simpler tent called the Tent of Tryst. A tent is of course the 
only practicable sanctuary for a nomad people. According to the 
account in our hands, this Tent was originally placed in the midst 
of the camp, but was later removed outside owing to the con- 
tamination of the people in the worship of the golden bull. The 
author's meaning is that Yahweh was willing to travel with His 
people, and so to be accessible to them by the mediation of 
Moses. The whole account is a reflection of later conditions and 
its historicity is open to grave doubts. The Ark, however, makes, 
a much more primitive impression. If the divinity of Sinai or 
of Kadesh resided in a rock — which from Arabic analogies seems 
very probable — it would be natural for the people to secure His 
presence by providing a chest in which to transport the fetish.^ 

The formation of such a covenant as we have assumed would 
not take place without friction. The elevation of a prophet to 
the leading place in the new nation would naturally call out the 
jealousy of the earlier leaders — the Sheikhs. It is possible, there- 
fore, that the murmurings of the people against Moses, of which 
our narrative is full, have some historic background. The most 
definite instance is the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram. These 
two leaders of the tribe of Reuben object to Moses' making him- 
self a prince over the people, and apparently charge him with 
self-interest in his administration.* Such a quarrel was certain 

* Meinhold, Die Lade Jahwe'^s, revives the theory that the Ark vi^as a 
portable throne. But, as pointed out by Budde, Z. Alttest. IVissenscA., XXI, 
p. 193, this does not account for all the facts. 

' Only thus can we understand Moses' declaration that he had not taken 
an ass from them, Num. 16 ^^. It should be remembered that the story of 
Korah and his company is a separate narrative, and belongs in the Priestly 
document. It has been ingeniously suggested that the quarrels here described 
resulted in a separation of the Israelite clans into two bodies, one of which 
attacked Canaan directly, while the other went around Edom to the eastern 
desert; cf. Steuernagel, Einwanderung der Israelitischen Sidmme (igoi) 
p. 107. 



72 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

to arise whenever an energetic prophet undertook to rouse the 
people to a new effort. The details of the narrative are, however, 
the product of the legend-building imagination. 

The results with which we have to content ourselves in the 
Mosaic period are meagre. There may have been an Israelite 
clan that sojourned in Egypt. Its exodus was not improbably 
due to a religious leader. Under this religious leader the people 
entered into covenant with other desert-dwelling clans at Kadesh. 
The God who sanctioned the alliance and who became a party 
to it was Yahweh, the Storm-God of Sinai. He was henceforth 
the leader of His people in war, and under His encouragement 
they undertook the conquest of Canaan. 



CHAPTER V 

TH E CONQUEST 

According to the Pentateuch, Israel made an attempt upon 
Canaan from the south and were repulsed, whereupon they made 
the circuit of Edom, took possession of Gilead and Bashan, and 
entered Canaan by the Jordan valley at Jericho. Although we 
hear of the repulse on the southern border, we know that Judah 
was in part made up from clans which always had their seat in 
that region. We suspect, therefore, that the circuit of Edom is a 
device of the narrator to unite two discordant traditions. In fact 
it is clear on reflection that the attack of Israel on the coveted 
land was made at more than one point, and that it was repeated 
with varying success a number of times before their footing was 
secure. The clans settled at Kadesh were only a minute fragment 
of what afterward became the people of Israel. 

Palestine is so situated that it has been the scene of almost 
continuous conflict from the earliest times. Lying between Egypt 
and the great Asiatic empires it was an object of desire to both 
its more powerful neighbours. Almost more constant is the men- 
ace of the Bedawin on its south and east. ' Arabia has always pro- 
duced more men than it can nourish. Perhaps in no part of the 
world is the population so constantly on the verge of starvation. 
The Bedawy is at the end of the year just where he was at the 
beginning of the year. Nine months of the twelve the milk of 
his flocks has barely sufficed to keep him alive. That such a 
people live in a chronic state of warfare is natural. The culti- 
vated country on the border of which they dwell is the constant 
object of their desire. History shows their steady pressure 
toward this goal. Two streams of migration have issued from 
Arabia from time immemorial. One proceeds northward from 
the Hejaz and threatens Palestine directly. The other strikes 
eastward and impinges upon the kingdoms of the Euphrates 
valley. But as these kingdoms have usually been well organised, 
this second stream has worked its way northward until it meets 

73 



74 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

the great current which flows from the northeast. Baffled by 
this, it has bent around the north end of the desert, overflowed 
the oasis of Damascus, and reached Palestine by way of Bashan. 
There is reason to suppose that both these streams have always 
had a part in the peopling of Palestine.^ Both of them are 
therefore represented in the people that called itself Israel. Jacob 
is persistently connected with Aram by the Hebrew writers : 
Abraham is an immigrant from the Euphrates region ; while, as 
we have just seen, the affiliation with Esau, Midian, and the 
Kenite would point to an Arabian source. 

The Canaanite or Amorite population that was displaced or 
absorbed by Israel was an earlier wave of the same flowing tide. 
What the earliest population of Canaan was, we have no means of 
knowing. Hebrew tradition gives, indeed, the outlandish names 
of Zamzummim, Emim, Zuzim, and others. But these are too 
slight a foundation for a theory. The Canaanites who were in full 
possession before the coming of Israel were evidently kinsfolk of 
their conquerors. Israel's pride led to the denial of the relation- 
ship, for the genealogies derive Canaan from Ham. But this is 
a late hypothesis. All the facts go to show that Phoenicians, 
Canaanites, and Hebrews were from the same original stock. 
This was once distinctly taught, it would seem, in the account of 
the curse of Canaan.^ 

In the struggle which has gone on from time immemorial for 
the possession of Palestine, nothing is more remarkable than the 
weakness of both parties, a weakness founded on their lack of co- 
hesion. Whenever the people of the settled country have been 
united under an energetic ruler they have laughed to scorn the 
attempts of the nomads. When the nomads have laid aside their 
tribal jealousies they have become irresistible. But for the most 
part neither one thing nor the other has taken place. The inhabi- 
tants of Canaan were usually divided into petty states unable to 
make common cause even under the severest pressure. The desert 

1 It is not within the province of this history to discuss the general ques- 
tion of the origin of the Semitic peoples. The reader may consult Barton, 
A Sketch of Semitic Origins (1902) and Paton, Early History of Syria. 
These authors agree that Arabia is the region from which the Semitic peoples 
(so far as we know them historically) emigrated. We must bear in mind 
that migration of peoples was the rule rather than the exception down to 
very recent times. 

2 See the chapter, " Noah als Winzer," in Budde's Biblische Urgeschichte. 



THE CONQUEST 75 

dwellers, in their turn, never dreamed of yielding their indepen- 
dence in order to unite in any movement, however important. 

The unification of Israel — so far as it was accomplished at all — 
was accomplished under Solomon. The conquest (to retain the 
conventional term) had been going on for four centuries or 
more. For, as we now know, before the exodus took place, or 
at least as early as the time when the southern clans were sojourn- 
ing at Kadesh, Asher was already in its later seat in northern 
Palestine, while two districts in the centre of the country bore 
the names Jacob and Joseph. Even more significant is it to 
find somewhere in the region a people called Israel mentioned in 
the Egyptian lists — lists which give the conquests of the Pharaoh 
usually identified with the Pharaoh of the exodus.^ 

It is not without reason that the Hebrew narrative makes the 
attempt from the south a failure. The clans settled at Kadesh 
can never have been powerful, for the desert in that region could 
not support more than a very scanty population. The conflict with 
the Amalekites must also have kept down their strength. It was 
only after the allied tribes had effected their entrance into Canaan 
that Caleb began to move northward, finally coalescing with 
Judah. The importance which Hebrew story gives to the desert 
sojourn is due to the consciousness that the tribes which brought 
Yahweh with them made the most important contribution to the 
life of the people. 

^The mention of Asher in inscriptions of Seti and Rameses II (about 
1400 B.C.) is affirmed by W. M. Miiller, Asien und Europea in Altdgyp- 
tischen Denkmdlern, p. 236 ff. On Jacob and Joseph (in the significant 
forms Jacob-el &nd Joseph-el), compare the same work, p. 162 flf., and Meyer 
in the Zeitschr. f. d. Alttest. Wissensch.^yi, pp. 1-16. These names occur 
in a list of Thothmes III. The mention of Israel in an inscription of Mern- 
ephtah is in such terms as to show the people already settled in the coun- 
try. Cf. OfTord in the Proceedings Soc. Bib. Arch., 1898, p. 55 ; Steindorff 
in Xhe Zeitschr. Alttest. JVissensch.,XVl, pp. 330-333; Spiegelberg in the 
Sitzungsbericht d. Berliner Akademie, 1896, p. 193 flf.; Griffiths in the Con- 
temporary Review, May, 1896. The most complete discussion of this inscrip- 
tion is by Wiedemann in Le Mnseon, l.ouvain, 1898, pp. 89-107. Wiede- 
mann emphasises the unreliable nature of the statements made in honour 
of an Egyptian king. When all allowance is made for the tendency of 
the scribe to exaggerate the exploits of his monarch, it still remains true 
that in the time of Mernephtah, in connexion with a list of Canaanite towns 
an Egyptian was able to say, " Israel is laid waste, its corn is annihilated." 
The statement, however false or exaggerated, is inconceivable unless at that 
date Israel were known as a settled people in Canaan. 



76 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

In itself considered, the story of a march around Edom pre- 
sents no improbabihty. The Sinai tic Bedawin of the present day 
extend their raids into the eastern desert beyond Damascus. Were 
the vigilance of the defenders of Canaan relaxed at any one point, 
no doubt that exposed point would attract invaders from every 
part of the wilderness. The unhistorical character of the ac- 
count is evident, however, from that part of it which narrates the 
conquest of the country beyond Jordan. That two battles should 
put Israel into complete possession of this rugged and defensible 
country is incredible. Legend has here condensed a long proc- 
ess into a single campaign. The region in question was chroni- 
cally in dispute between Israel, Moab, Ammon, and Syria — not 
to speak of Sihon and Og, who appear in our narrative. The 
fragments of verse with which the story is adorned^ really com- 
memorate the battles and raids of a later time, at least as late as 
the time of Omri. It is possible that the earliest struggle was 
between the Amorites and Reuben, the latter being allied with 
Moab and Ammon. A fragment of the earlier people was adopted 
in Israel by the name Gad.^ 

What is quite certain is that Israel was settled in the transjor- 
danic territory before the invasion of Canaan proper. In historic 
times the district belonged to Reuben, who is called the first-born 
of Israel. The dignity thus assigned to him shows that tradition 
made these the first Israelite settlements. In the time of Saul we 
find that Jabesh Gilead was fully Israelite. The association of 
Jacob-Israel with Mahanaim and Penuel is an indication of the 
same sort, while the fact that Ishbaal, the son of Saul, found a se- 
cure refuge at Mahanaim (as did David when compelled to leave 
his capital) shows that Israelite blood had its claims fully recog- 
nised in these ancient settlements. Once thoroughly established 
in Gilead, Israel had a base of attack for the reduction of Canaan. 

The El Amarna tablets, discovered and deciphered in our own 
time, have thrown a strong light upon the state of affairs in 
Canaan in the fourteenth century before Christ. We have already 
seen that Palestine is necessarily the bone of contention between 
Egypt and any strong power in Western Asia. Some time before 

1 I refer to Num. 21 1*^- ^'-so. 

2 Cf. Paton, Early History of Syria, p. 150. The tribe of Gad called 
itself by the name of its divinity, of whose worship in Syria we have many 
evidences, Baethgen, Beitrdge zur Semit. Religionsgeschichte, I, pp. 7^~8o» 



THE CONQUEST 77 

the date of the tablets, Babylon had evidently been in possession 
of the country, for it is Babylonian script which is used by the 
writers even in communicating with the Egyptian court. The 
actual (or rather nominal) suzerain, however, was Egypt ; and the 
records show that at this time the power or vigilance of the recog- 
nised chief monarch was much relaxed. The Egyptian court ap- 
pointed native rulers with the title of king, each having under him 
a single city with its dependent towns. Each of these princelings 
paid tribute when forced to pay it ; each was lavish in protesta- 
tations of fidelity to his chief, " his god, his sun "; each was lavish 
in excuses when he thought it safe to withhold his present ; each 
was ready to-fight for his own hand against his neighbours. In 
case of serious invasion each was ready to claim the protection of 
Egypt, but each was equally ready to join hands with the invaders 
if Egypt should show weakness or neglect. 

Now it is interesting to discover that a somewhat serious in- 
vasion was in progress at the time when these letters were written. 
We read repeated, earnest, sometimes despairing appeals of the 
princes for Egyptian help. The enemy seems to be a Bedawin 
people who are called Chabiri. They come from the north, and 
threaten Phoenicia as well as Palestine proper. Their attack 
seems most pressing in Phoenicia, for we find the most urgent 
appeals for help sent from Gebal, Beirut, Sidon, and Tyre — from 
whose governors some towns or fortresses have already been taken. 
In this region the invaders are united under a leader named Abd- 
Ashera, whose followers are sometimes called his sons. It is rather 
curious to note that this sheikh claims himself to be subject to 
Egypt. In Canaan similar bands are threatening Jerusalem, 
Makkedah, Hazor, and Gezer. On the other hand, places in Phi- 
listia such as Ashkelon have not yet been molested. 

Interesting points brought out by the letters are : the compara- 
tive feebleness of the separate bands of invaders, and the readi- 
ness of the native chiefs to enter into alliance with them. The 
feebleness is brought out by the requests for help which in all 
cases assume that only a very few Egyptian soldiers will be 
necessary. The writers even in their greatest stress seem to 
think that fifty, forty, even twenty Egyptian soldiers will be 
able to defend their towns against the enemy. No doubt we 
here discover a constant feature of the long struggle with the 
Bedawin. The invaders have no means of compelling walled 



78 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

towns.* Siege-works and battering-rams are wholly beyond 
them. If only the walls are sound and provisions do not give 
out, the citizens may scoff at the invaders. For the most part 
the attempt to reduce a fortress by starvation will fail, for the 
besiegers themselves have no regular commissariat. If they bring 
their flocks with them they soon graze off the immediate neigh- 
bourhood and are compelled to move on. 

These considerations show how the process may extend over a 
long period of time. Occasionally, no doubt, a large company of 
invaders may carry a place by sudden assault. The religious 
frenzy which drives them to such a deed is likely to lead to the 
extermination of the unfortunate victims. By a solemn vow the 
town and its inhabitants are in such a case devoted to the divinity 
whom the assaulting party regards as its leader. The story of 
Jericho shows the thoroughness with which one such vow was 
carried out. Mesha of Moab boasts of the Israelite towns which 
he had thus *' devoted " to Chemosh. 

But, for the most part, such extreme measures are not reached. 
The townspeople recognise that it is better to make peace with 
their tormentors. By the payment of blackmail they can make 
allies of their enemies, and perhaps even employ them against 
their neighbours with whom they are at feud. In the desert it is 
not uncommon for the cultivators of the oases to pay tribute to 
the Bedawin in order to secure themselves peace. Mohammed's 
terms at Kheibar are only a specimen of what has taken place 
again and again. So the men of Jabesh were willing to enter into 
any reasonable arrangement with the Ammonites. It was only 
the harshness and humiliation of the terms actually offered which 
prevented an understanding in this case. When an understanding 
is once reached, the parties are on amicable terms enough. The 
Bedawin agree to respect the rights of the townsmen, and honour- 
ably carry out the agreement. Alliances are made between indi- 
viduals on both sides ; the Arab has a friend in town whom he 
visits, the townsman has some one to whom he can appeal in case 
the flocks trespass on the cultivated ground. Intermarriage fol- 
lows, and the final amalgamation of the two stocks. The Patri- 
archal sagas already considered give evidence that many such 

^ The inability of Mohammed's enemies to carry the very feeble entrench- 
ments at Medina, in the Campaign of the Ditch, is a striking illustration of 
a similar condition of things. 



THE CONQUEST 79 

alliances were entered into by Israel. For instance, Abraham 
and Isaac both make covenants with Abimelech. Judah has a 
friend Hirah the AduUamite, who is of the earlier inhabitants, 
and he takes Tamar, a Canaanitess, as wife for his son. The 
allies of Abraham in the very late account of his attack upon 
Chedorlaomer are Canaanites. Jacob's purchase of ground, and 
Abraham's purchase of a burial-place, are examples of titles se- 
cured by peaceful means. The early documents know that the 
conquest was an extended process. Thus we have a promise of 
Yahweh given by the mouth of Moses to the effect that He would 
not drive the enemy out suddenly, but httle by little.^ 

The El Amarna tablets reveal a somewhat extended invasion 
going on. Whether it be the Hebrew immigration is not yet 
certainly made out. The Chabiri of the tablets cannot be 
affirmed to be the Hebrews. But Chabiri and Hebrews are a 
part of the same general stream of migration. We see alliances 
already forming between the towns and the invaders. The Old 
Testament testifies that Israel established itself by means of such 
alliances. Later writers make this, indeed, the basis of a serious 
charge against Israel.'^ 

1 Exod. 23 28-3«. 

' The cuneiform tablets discovered at El Amarna in Egypt are published in 
transliterated text with translation by Winckler {Keilinsckr. Bibliothek, V, 
Berlin, 1896). Up to the time of their discovery it was not known that 
Egypt had any rights in Canaan at the time of the conquest — the Hebrew 
sources nowhere show any knowledge of this fact. The unsettled state of 
the country at the writing of the tablets is indicated by the complaint of 
Burnaburiash, king of Babylon, that his caravans have been plundered on 
their way to Egypt (Winckler, p. 27). It is not only the Chabiri who are 
dangerous to the towns, we hear also of the Amorites and Hittites as hostile 
to the Egyptian supremacy. The Chabiri who follow Abd Ashera are some- 
times described as coming from Mitanni and Kash, which were Mesopo- 
tamian countries (pp. 185, 189). They were in alliance with the Hittites, or 
were perhaps mercenaries in their service, for they seem also to have en- 
listed as mercenaries under the Canaanitish rulers (Letter 144, p. 265). That 
they were ready to enter into alliance with the natives is illustrated by the 
petition of the people of Gebal to their governor that he " make alliance with 
the Sons of Abd Ashera, that we may have peace" (p. 203), and in the com- 
plaint that the people are falling away to the Chabiri (p. 299). Various 
points of interest in the tablets are brought out by Petrie, Syria and Egypt 
from the Tell El Amarna Letters (N. Y., 1898); Trampe, Syrien vor dem 
Eindringen der Israeliten (Berlin, 1898); Klostermann, Ein Diplomatischer 
Briefwechsel aus dem zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christi (Kiel, 1898); Niebuhr, 
Die Amarna Z^/^ (Leipzig, 1899); Jastrow, in the Journal of BibL Lit., XI, 



:8o OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

As we might expect, the literary imagination compressed the 
long process of conquest into a short, sharp conflict. The book of 
Joshua was the result. In this narrative, Israel, after encamping 
some time in the Plains of Moab, crosses the Jordan and estab- 
lishes itself at Gilgal. Here the reproach of Egypt is rolled away 
by the circumcision of the people. Spies are sent out who dis- 
cover that the people of the land are already in a panic. Jericho 
falls by a miracle, and is made an example by utter "devotion." 
Even the ground on which the ruins lie is put under a curse. 
A reverse at Ai is the means of discovering Achan's sacrilege. 
After his detection and punishment the town falls, being devoted 
like Jericho. Its destruction is followed by the building of an 
altar on Ebal. Then comes the treaty with the Gibeonites, se- 
cured by deceit on their part, and conceded by criminal careless- 
ness on the part of Joshua. The treaty is resented by the Canaan- 
ites, who attack the new allies of Israel. This gives Joshua new 
occasion for battle, and the natives are routed at Beth-horon — 
a battle marked by direct divine interposition in response to 
Joshua's prayer. The capture of the cities in the region is an easy 
matter, and the inhabitants are without exception devoted at the 
edge of the sword. 

This experience is duplicated for the northern part of the 
country. Jabin, king of Hazor, gathers an immense army at the 
Waters of Merom. Joshua destroys the army, hamstrings the 
horses, and burns the chariots. After this, he takes possession of 
the cities, exterminating the inhabitants, but taking the property 
for Israel. There follows a list of the kings that have been over- 
thrown. The whole land is left entirely free for Israel to parti- 
tion and occupy. The description and assignment of the terri- 
tory occupy the latter part of the book.^ 

p. 95 ff., XII, p. 6i if. Paton, Early History of Syria, p. iii ff.; Winckler, 
Keilinschriften und Altes Testament^^ -p. 196 ff. 

The reader may perhaps object to the El Amarna letters being called to 
testify to the condition of Palestine, both in the Patriarchal period and at the 
time of the conquest. Strictly speaking, they testify to the state of things a 
little before the Israelite invasion. But they imply that a similar condition 
had existed during some centuries before the time of their composition. 

^ The Book of Joshua falls naturally into two parts ; first an account 
of the battles with the Canaanites, then a sketch of the division of the coun- 
try among the tribes. The latter ^chapters 13-24) is simply a reflection of 
geographical divisions as they existed at a later time. This section, at any 



THE CONQUEST 8l 

It is only an a priori objection to this account to say that no 
nation ever dealt with a conquered country in this wholesale 
manner, or that the complete extermination of a whole people is 
an impossibility. The defender of the narrative might plead 
that in this case the impossible took place, and that Israel's 
exigency required measures elsewhere unparalleled in history. 
What leads us to doubt the historicity of the narrative is the fact 
(already noted) that the Old Testament sources themselves give 
abundant indications of another sort of conquest. It is, for 
example, a frequent complaint of the Old Testament writers that 
Israel did not exterminate the earlier inhabitants of Canaan. On 
the one side, this is attributed to the incorrigible lust of Israel for 
alliance and intermarriage with the heathen ; on the other side, 
it is accounted for by the purpose of Yahweh Himself. Either 
He left the people of the land to be gradually dispossessed, 
in order that the wild animals might not increase and become 
unconquerable ; or He left them in order that Israel might be 
kept in martial exercise ; or else He kept them to test Israel's 
fidelity to himself in full view of the religions of Canaan ; or 
finally. He kept them alive as scourges with which to punish His 
people's disobedience.^ The variety of explanations emphasises 
the fact that the Canaanites, so far from being destroyed by 
Joshua, were a prominent part of society at least down to the 
time of Deuteronomy. 

Equally significant is the testimony of other documents to the 
fact that the cities said to have been destroyed by Joshua were 
not actually in the possession of Israel until a much later time. 
The most conspicuous example is Jerusalem, which did not be- 
come Israelite until the time of David. Even the narrative we 
have been considering ascribes the conquest of Hebron not to 
Joshua, but to Caleb.^ Debir fell before the prowess of Othniel; 

rate, can make no claim to be history, because it comes from a postexilic 
author, whose distance from the events would prevent his having any accu- 
rate knowledge of what took place. The composite nature of the rest of the 
book is evident. Its oldest sections are found repeated in other connexions, 
where they give a very different impression from the one made by the book 
of Joshua. Their true import will be seen below. 

^ Compare Judges, 2 2°-^^, 3 2, with Deut. 7 '^'^. 

^According to Joshua, 15 ^*, Caleb drove out the Anakim from Hebron, 
though Hebron had been captured and its inhabitants had been massacred 
by Joshua, 10 ^^ ^ 



82 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Gezer was Canaanite until the time of Solomon. Beth-shan was 
Canaanite in the time of Saul. Jabin, king of Hazor, was not a 
contemporary of Joshua, but of a much later generation. Shechem 
in the very centre of Israelite territory remained Canaanite 
through the period of the Judges.^ 

Now the account of the battle of Merom suggests the nature of 
the literary process. We compare the victory of Joshua there 
with the victory of Deborah and Barak in the Great Plain, and 
we see striking points of resemblance. In both cases the leader 
of the enemy is Jabin, king of Hazor ; in both cases the Canaan- 
ites have a large force of chariots ; in both, the victory of Israel 
is complete. The Waters of Merom ^ at which Joshua meets 
the enemy are not yet identified, but the Great Plain in which 
Barak defeats Sisera is for a chariot force the most appropri- 
ate ground in the region. The conclusion is obvious — the ac- 
count of Joshua's battle is a later reflection of the victory of 
Barak. 

And if one of Joshua's great battles is the reflection of an event 
that took place later, the other is probably like it. In the life of 
Saul we find a conspicuous event in the defeat of the Philistines. 
This battle begins at Michmash, but during the day the enemy 
are driven westward beyond Beth-horon.^ But Beth-horon is 
the scene of Joshua's great victory. It is easy to suppose that 
tradition has here duplicated a single event, in which case the ex- 
ploit of Saul is the original. 

The account of the conquest given by the Book of Joshua fails 
us, therefore, when we seek for facts. And the reason why it fails 
us is found in the nature of the book. The aim of the author is 
not history, but edification. Writing at a comparatively late date, 
and looking back upon a remote past, he sees the conquest as a 
signal act of Yahweh's kindness to His people. To glorify this 
kindness is, in the author's mind, much more important than 

^ On Gezer, cf. i Kings, 9 ^^; Beth-shan, i Sam. 31 ^"i Jabin is a Canaan- 
itish king in the time of Deborah, Judges, 4 ^ ; Shechem seems to be Canaan- 
ite under Abimelech, Judges 9. 

2 The current identification of this site with the Huleh lake is without 
any support in the Biblical text. 

^i Sam. 14^*"'; it does not seem violent to conclude this on the basis 
of Jonathan's assertion that if the people had been a little more vigorous, 
they would have driven the enemy to Aijalon, which lay some distance 
below Beth-horon. 



THE CONQUEST 83 

to ascertain what actually took place. Hence the superhu- 
man character of the events. The Ark only needs to approach 
the Jordan in order that its waters may flee. The stones of Gilgal 
are chosen and set up by divine command as memorial stones. 
Jericho falls without human eff'ort, but not without giving us an 
edifying example of treachery in the person of Rahab. The 
transgression of Achan, its disastrous results, the detection and 
l)unishment, are narrated at length in order to emphasise the 
taboo laid upon the Canaanites. The sparing of the Gibeonites 
was a historical fact too obstinate to be ignored. The only way 
to account for it was to suppose the covenant obtained by deceit. 
Even then the author cannot wait for Solomon to reduce the un- 
fortunate people to slavery, but attributes this step to Joshua. In 
short, the book is an imaginative picture of what might have taken 
place, had the conquest occupied a few weeks instead of two cen- 
turies or more.^ 

In this state of affairs it is especially fortunate that another ac- 
count of the conquest has been preserved to us. This is the nar- 
rative which we now read in the opening chapter of the Book of 
Judges. Editorially it has been adapted to its present position by 
a superscription which dates the events after the death of Joshua. 
The incongruity of this with the narrative which precedes, is 
evident. If the Canaanites had been exterminated by Joshua, 
there would have been no need to begin the conquest over again. 
Leaving out this false date, we see that this author is giving an 
account of the conquest as it actually took place. He knows 
nothing of a leader named Joshua — knows nothing of an Israel 
united under a single general. In fact, he goes back to the so- 
journ of Israel in Kadesh, and shows us their attack upon the 
country from the south. Judah and Simeon, we learn, took 
possession of Bezek, Hebron, Debir, and Hormah. Three of 
these we know to have been in the southern district, and the 
capture of Hormah is in another passage expressly said to have 

^ The Book of Joshua is a part of the Hexateuch and is made up from 
the elements which appear in the other five books. But it has very few 
traces of the earliest document (J) whose account of the conquest did not 
agree with the later theory and was therefore left out. Fortunately it was 
not wholly lost, as we shall see. The account in Joshua shows strong Deu- 
teronomistic colouring. An author who thought the forefathers must have 
fulfilled the later ideal by the complete destruction of the Canaanites, worked 
over the account of E with the results now in our hand. 



84 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

been effected from the desert/ The mention of the Kenites 
and the Amalekites in the original text of our j)assage, argues in 
the same direction. Moreover, had Judah invaded the country 
from the Jordan valley, its march would have been opposed by 
the powerful fortress of Jerusalem which confessedly was Canaan- 
ile till the time of David. 

In this passage we learn that Simeon was in near alliance with 
Judah. We hear also of Caleb as leader in the attack on He- 
bron and Othniel as the conqueror of Debir. In both cases 
we have reason to suspect that the names really represent clans 
which were afterward accounted subdivisions of Judah. The 
story of Achsah and her request to Caleb is an setiological saga, 
designed to establish an ancient claim to certain springs of water. 
This shows that even here we are not on thoroughly historical 
ground. But the account has a very much better conception of 
what actually took place than we find in the Book of Joshua. 
Besides the exploits of Judah the only warlike event it narrates is 
the capture of Bethel by the tribe of Joseph, and this is accom- 
plished by the commonplace method of treachery and surprise. 
For the rest the author contents himself with enumerating the 
towns which the Israelites were not able to conquer, but in which 
they obtained rights as clients. This illustrates what was said 
above about the method of coalition. When the newcomers be- 
came troublesome they obtained admission to certain territories 
by treaty. The treaty allowed them to build quarters of their 
own in the cities. At first they were not recognised as on an 
equality with the older citizens, but had the inferior rights of '' so- 
journers. ' ' Thus the two peoples dwelt side by side in many of 
the cities, certainly as late as the time of Solomon, and it is this 
state of affairs^ which the author has before his eyes. When 
the Israelites became strong enough, they reversed the relations, 
reducing the Canaanites to clientage, to forced labour, or even to 
slavery. Extermination, which was the ideal of later times, was 
not thought of while the problem was a practical one. 

1 Num. 21 ^-^ which originally followed directly on the account of the 
spies. It is natural to connect the city of palms of Judg. i ^^ with the Tamar 
which we know to have existed in the South Country. The subject is dis- 
cussed by Steuernagle, Einwanderimg der Israelitischen Stdmme (1901). 

2 The Arab analogies are striking. Compare, for example, the state of 
things at Medina when Mohammed came thither ; Wellhausen, Skizzen und 
Vorarbeiten, IV (1889). 



THE CONQUEST 85 

The harmony of this representation (barring a little foreshort- 
ening) with what we have found in the El Amarna tablets is 
evidence of its truth. In the tablets we see a strong wave of 
immigration making itself felt in the country. In the Hebrew 
account we see how it has distributed itself, making its way to 
all parts of the land. The details of its entrance into the differ- 
ent settlements escape our knowledge. We have already seen 
that the episode of Dinah in Genesis represents one way. In 
the book of Judges we have another characteristic incident in the 
campaign of the Danites. Here we find the tribe of Dan already 
settled in the country, but straitened by attack on both sides. 
They therefore send out spies to seek new seats. Any town open 
to attack is regarded as fair game. The report of the spies shows 
that Laish, at the foot of Mount Hermon, is a town detached from 
its natural allies, the Sidonians, and at the same time unsuspicious 
of attack. The whole fighting force of the tribe — six hundred 
men is the number — marches forth against the city. They take 
it unawares, storm the walls, put the inhabitants to the sword, 
and divide the land among themselves.^ 

The account, as well as the action of the Danites, betrays no 
conscience concerning the transaction. It is assumed that a 
state of war exists everywhere except where it is barred by kin- 
ship or by express treaty rights. The Canaanites must look out 
for themselves, and if they are caught unprotected they have only 
themselves to blame. These are the principles held by both par- 
ties during the long period of Israelite invasion. Probably many 
a town which confided in its walls fell a victim to its own sense 
of security and the aggressive alertness of the invaders. Many, 
however, rather than be subject to unexpected attack chose the 
part of discretion, and made some sort of arrangement with the 
enemy. For the most part a treaty made with religious sanc- 
tions was sufficient to secure a tolerable peace, though the 
instance of Saul and the Gibeonites shows that this was not 
always the case. From the later point of view the state of 
society was unsettled as compared with the king's peace — 
" there was no king in Israel, and every man did that which 
was right in his own eyes." 

* Judges, 18. The present account is composite, but the older portion 
can be separated out with some certainty ; cf. Moore's edition in Haupt's 
Sacred Books of the Old Testament. 



86 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

When this oldest account of the conquest ^ is carefully exam- 
ined we find that after some centuries of struggle Israel was in full 
possession of the highlands of Judah and the highlands of Ephraim 
only. In the valleys the Canaanites were able to maintain them- 
selves '' because they had chariots of iron." North of the Great 
Plain the process of mingling had gone furthest, and we infer from 
certain indications that the Israelites there were in subjection to 
the older inhabitants. The Testament of Jacob ^ compares Is- 
sachar to a pack-animal, willing to serve so long as it is fed. 
And the Song of Deborah intimates that the northern tribes were 
restrained by their Canaanite alliances from taking part with 
their brethren against the common enemy. All this time, how- 
ever, amalgamation was going on, and when a strong Israelite 
leader came to the front many Canaanitish elements had already 
become absorbed in Israel. 

^Judges, I. That this chapter contains J's account of the conquest was 
pointed out by E. Meyer in the Zeitschr. f. d. Alttest. Wissensch., I, pp. 
1 17-145. His results have been accepted by all recent commentators, includ- 
ing Nowack {Handkommentar , 1900). 

^ Gen. 49. The ancient poem is a description rather than a Testament or 
Blessing. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE HEROES 

Following the account of the conquest and division of the 
land under Joshua we have in our Hebrew Canon a book which 
we call traditionally y}/^^j. In the form in which we now read 
it, it is a work of edification like the others we have considered. 
This form, however, is reached by a redactional process, and we 
are able to distinguish between the material which the editor 
found ready to hand, and the additions which he made. The 
substance of the book is a series of stories about Israel's deliver- 
ers. They are fitted into a framework which makes them teach 
the uniform lesson that backsliding from Yahweh is followed by 
punishment, in the form of war and defeat, while repentance is 
rewarded by deliverance and victory. The stories often show 
their reluctance to teach this lesson by the very imperfect manner 
in which they meet the views of the compiler. In themselves 
they are of the utmost value as illustrating the early age of Israel's 
conflicts.^ 

In this book we find the Israelites settled in the midst of the 
Canaanites, and in a chronic state of warfare. The central high- 
lands (Ephraim) are in their possession, but they may be called at 
any time to defend themselves either against the older inhabitants 
or against fresh invaders from the desert. It is evident that the 
stream of migration is still pushing on from the East. The next 
wave is as willing to overwhelm Israel as Israel has been willing to 
submerge the Canaanites. The strongholds in the plains are still 

^ The structure of the Book of Judges has been carefully investigated by 
recent scholars, including Budde {Richter unci Sai7iiiel, 1890; Das Buck 
der Richter, 1 897), Moore {International Critical Commetttary, 1 895 ; The 
Book 0/ Judges in Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old Testament, 1898 ; critical 
edition of the Hebrew text in Haupt's series, 1900), and Nowack {Richter- 
Ruth in the Handkommentar^ 1900). The stories which form the ground- 
work of the book are sometimes composite, and there seems to have been 
a double redaction. The artificial scheme of the final editor made the num- 
ber of "Judges" twelve. This was secured by inserting the minor Judges, 
of which the names only are known. 

87 



88 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

in possession of the ancient inhabitants. Between the tv/o hos- 
tile forces Israel is in danger of being ground to pieces. 

The danger of the situation is increased by the lack of unity in 
Israel itself. The tribes have evidently fought for their own hand. 
The vague sense of kindred which undoubtedly exists is not suffi- 
cient to keep them from attacking each other. It may even be 
doubted whether Judah was yet counted a part of Israel. In any 
case, the tribes are not able to make common cause even against 
a powerful enemy. The social organisation is still that of the 
desert. There is no central authority, no authority at all, prop- 
erly speaking, even for a single tribe. The Sheikhs have a cer- 
tain influence due to the purity of their blood, but the influence 
is never sufficient to coerce the freemen of the tribe. A man of 
extraordinary energy, or one who shows especial prowess in war, is 
doubtless respected in the community. The expression of his 
wishes will receive some attention because his fellow-tribesmen 
desire to stand well with him, or because they fear his displeasure. 
He may declare war or rather plan a campaign, but his following 
from the fighting men will be volunteers moved by personal afl"ec- 
tion for him or by confidence in his ability to lead them where 
they will get revenge, or booty, or both. He cannot issue an 
order or levy contributions. 

In ordinary times such a man is only the older brother of the 
poorest tribesman. But if he be a man of upright purpose he is 
likely to increase his prestige by arbitrating the differences be- 
tween his brethren. Where such differences arise the man who is 
wronged, or who thinks himself wronged, looks about for an ally 
who will help him to his own. The cry of the suitor is not " hear 
and decide my case " but ^' avenge me of mine adversary." The 
Sheikh thus becomes the vindicator of the oppressed, and it is 
in this way that we must interpret his title. The Judges whose 
exploits are related for us in the period now under review were 
in no sense magistrates. They were men who had vindicated 
the rights of Israel in battle. Later times, misled by the double 
meaning of the word Judge, gave them something of the kingly 
position and prerogatives. In truth the time in which they lived 
was a time when every man did what was right in his own eyes. 
There was neither law nor tribunal in our sense of the word.* 

^ The Suffetes of Carthage are evidently the Shophetim of the Hebrews, 
showing that a regular magistracy may develop from the extraordinary insti- 



THE HEROES 89 

The position of Barak, Gideon, and Jephthah in the community 
is thus quite clear. They were raised up to vindicate the rights 
of their people against the oppressor. Another thing is not 
quite so clear. As has been shown above, tribal society is based 
upon the custom of blood revenge. When a man is killed it is 
the duty of all the clan to avenge his death. But this does not 
mean that the murderer is to be executed. If he can be taken, 
well and good ; but the blood he has shed rests upon his whole 
clan. Justice is satisfied if any member of the clan is slain as an 
equivalent for the murdered man. Of course there must be 
equality — freeman for freeman, client for client, slave for slave. 
What we do not always make clear to ourselves is that this gives 
legitimacy to private warfare in the form which we call assassina- 
tion. That the brother of a murdered man should make his way 
in disguise into the camp of the murderer and there strike down 
the first man he meets (though innocent of any part in the 
crime that is to be avenged) strikes us with horror. It is not 
so in tribal society. The public conscience does not condemn 
assassination where there is blood between the parties — it rather 
applauds it.^ The public enemy, of course, stands upon the 
same footing with the private enemy, for blood revenge must be 
taken for men slain in battle as well as for those slain in private 
quarrel. While our own code therefore condemns Ehud as an 
assassin, we can understand how the conscience of his kinsmen 
hailed him as their deliverer. 

The first story of deliverance gives us almost nothing but the 
bare scheme of the editor. It relates that Israel forgot Yahweh 
and served the Baals and Asherahs. Yahweh was incensed 
against them and sold them into the power of Chushan-risha- 
thaim, king of Syria, on the Euphrates. From this oppression 
they were delivered by Othniel ben Kenaz, Caleb's younger 
brother. As we have evidence that Caleb is only the eponym 
of a clan, the flesh and blood character of Othniel is open to 
doubt. Chushan-rishathaim has a name that does not inspire 
confidence, and an invasion from Syria is out of line with all the 

tution here described for us. But among the Hebrews the development was 
arrested by the monarchy. 

' Mohammed's unscrupulousness in this matter is well known. What is 
to us so revolting does not seem to have offended his contemporaries, 
whether friends or foes. 



90 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Other feuds of which we read in the period. It has been acutely 
conjectured that for Syria (Aram) we should read Edom, and that 
we have here a trace of the early struggles between Judah and 
Edom, of which there must have been many.^ Even if this be 
true the absence of detail in the narrative makes it valueless for 
our purpose, and we must go on to Ehud, the first real deliverer. 

The famihar story ^ is to the effect that Moab invaded Israel 
and made them tributary. The only tribe affected seems to have 
been Benjamin. Eglon, the Moabite king, estabhshed himself in 
Jericho, and hither the Benjamites brought their tribute, which 
was of course paid in kind. One of the sheikhs responsible for 
the payment was Ehud, a man left-handed. In his defect he 
found his opportunity. In preparing for his deed, he concealed 
along dagger on his right side — where the king's guard, if they 
searched him, would not think to look. Thus armed, he headed 
the long train of bearers. The tribute being delivered, the train 
retreated as far as the images at Gilgal — a well-known sanctuary. 
Here Ehud dismissed them and made his way alone to the palace. 
On the pretext of discovering secret information he was admitted 
to a private audience in the upper chamber of the palace. The 
declaration, '' I have a message of God for thee, O King," caused 
the king to rise from his seat — the respect which the oriental 
feels for a man inspired sufficiently accounts for the movement. 
A single stab in the abdomen accomplished the purpose of the 
Benjamite. The security of the attendants was such that Ehud 
made his escape before their suspicions were awakened. Benja- 
min was aroused ; the Moabite garrison was cut off. The result 
was deliverance from the oppressor.' 

The next event recounted for us is of far-reaching importance, 
because it is the first case in which Israel overcame a regular 

^ The words Aram and Edom are very similar in Hebrew and there are 
some cases of their confusion by the scribes in our Hebrew Bibles. The 
substitution of Edom for Aram in this passage (Judges 3 ''-^^) was made by 
Gratz, Gesch. d. Juden, I, p. 412 f., and has recently been taken up by 
Winckler, G esc hie hte Israels, II, p. 118. Further conjectures are recorded 
by Paton, Early History of Syria, p. 161 f. 

2 Judges 3 ^•''-30. 

3 The apparent smoothness of the narrative should not blind us to the diffi- 
culty of forming a clear conception of what actually happened. How Ehud 
obtained the private audience will probably always remain obscure. I think 
it probable that in the original narrative he was entertained by the king as 
his guest. 



THE HEROES 9I 

army in the plain. As was to be expected, so great an event was 
worthily celebrated in the songs of the people, and one of the 
most important literary monuments of the Old Testament is the 
Song of Deborah which is connected by tradition with this vic- 
tory. In attempting to discover what took place the Song is 
our chief reliance. The prose narrative is later and less original.^ 
The course of events seems to be somewhat as follows: 

Israel was firmly settled in the central highlands in the district 
known as Mount Ephraim. Between them and Judah, however, was 
a strip of Canaanite territory dominated by the important fortress 
of Jerusalem, as yet unconquered. West of Jerusalem we know that 
at least Kirjath jearim was a member of the Gibeonite confeder- 
acy. On this side, therefore, Ephraim and Benjamin were cut 
off from their natural allies. There was, however, no active hos- 
tility on this side — perhaps the Gibeonite treaty was already in 
force. The scene of war was to the north, where the Great Plain 
(Esdraelon) was entirely in the hand of the Canaanites. Taanach 
and Megiddo in the edge of the Plain are known to have been 
Canaanite strongholds. Such also was Beth-shan at the opening 
of the side valley of Jezreel into the Jordan valley. Issachar may 
have held the ridge of Gilboa, while Zebulun and Naphtali had 
wedged themselves among the earlier inhabitants on the hills to 
the north of the Great Plain. But the first impulse which had 
brought them into the country had spent itself. Under the lead 
of an energetic prince named Sisera, the Canaanites had pulled 
themselves together, and the Israelites were crowded to the wall. 
Some of them were reduced to serfdom. The caravan roads 
were insecure, being at the mercy of the tyrant's soldiers. Traffic 
almost ceased, the cultivated country was plundered, the fighting 
men were disarmed, so that no spear or shield was seen among the 
forty thousand of Israel.^ 

Sisera' s capital seems to have been to the north of the Great 
Plain and not far distant from it. Here he mustered his army 

^ It is now generally recognised that the prose narrative (Judg. 4) is 
later than the poem which follows. The former is, moreover, composite, 
mingling the account of a war with Jabin with that of the war with Sisera. 

* The oppression is said to have taken place in the days of Shamgar ben 
Anath (Judges 5*). This Shamgar has been conjectured to be the father of 
Sisera, and the non-Semitic character of the name indicates a foreign, per- 
haps a Hittite, invasion ; so Moore, Journal of the Am. Oriental Soc. XIX, 
II (1898), p. 159 f. 



92 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

for a great raid which was designed to break the remaining 
power of Israel. His force of chariots was so considerable that 
resistance seemed to be vain. But Yahweh is not always on 
the side of the heaviest artillery. The leading spirit in Israel was 
a woman named Deborah, who is described as a prophetess. In 
this case, as in so many others, a religious leader alone could 
infuse faith and courage into the people. The prose narrative 
makes her judge Israel — doubtless by oracular revelation of the 
divine will. We saw in the case of Moses that a prophet nat- 
urally became the arbiter of disputes among the people. The 
oldest law book expressly provides that certain cases shall be 
brought to God for decision. Deborah, seated under one of the 
sacred trees, of which the country was full, gave responses to those 
who came to inquire concerning the will of God. Doubtless 
many such inspired women attained to public reputation during 
the history of Israel. But not many of them used their influence 
to rouse patriotic enthusiasm in a time of danger. 

All that we know is that this woman gave a message of God to 
Barak, the Sheikh of Naphtali, commanding him to bring what 
forces he could muster to Mount Tabor. Probably her influence 
was exerted on the chiefs of the other tribes at the same time, urg- 
ing them to make common cause against the common enemy. The 
locality was favourable for a rally of the tribes. On the wooded 
slopes the warriors would be out of the reach of the dreaded 
chariots ; at the same time they would be within striking distance 
should the enemy expose himself on the march. According to 
tradition ten thousand out of Israel's forty thousand able-bodied 
men responded to the summons. In ordinary circumstances, ill 
armed as they were, they could not cope with the force under 
Sisera's command. The chariots were superior so long as they 
had ground on which to manoeuvre. 

But the circumstances soon became extraordinary. Under a 
heavy rainfall the alluvial plain becomes a morass, in which 
heavy troops find it impossible to move.^ The hopes of Israel in 
the God of battle and of the storm were not disappointed. Yah- 
weh came from Sinai ; the mountains shook, the earth trembled, 
the clouds poured down water ; the stars from their courses 
fought against Sisera. A cloud-burst inundated the plain and 
made it a sea of mire. The chariots sank in the bog, and the 
* So the Turkish cavalry found to their cost some millenniums later. 



THE HEROES 93 

frantic efforts of horses and drivers produced a panic which soon 
became a rout. The insignificant stream of Kishon became a 
river choked with chariots, horses, and the dead bodies of the 
Canaanites. The Hght-armed Israelites, as we may suppose, hung 
on the skirts of the disheartened and flying foe. If only the peo- 
ple of Meroz — an Israelite village that commanded the road of 
the fugitives — had been true to their opportunity the whole force 
of the enemy might have been annihilated. 

As it was, the victory was a signal one, and it was made more 
complete by the death of the hated Sisera. He indeed did not 
perish in the melee. Abandoning his chariot he succeeded in 
making his way on foot some distance toward his capital. 
Wearied and footsore he stopped at a Bedawin encampment and 
asked for refreshment. The tent-dwellers were Kenites, ancient 
friends of Israel who had come with them into the Promised 
Land, but who had not adopted the agricultural life. Gipsy- 
like they still kept. up the nomad life, camping wherever they 
could find pasture. Jael, the wife of the Sheikh, was the only one 
at home. Though her people were not involved in the struggle, 
their sympathies were with Israel. When the fugitive king ap- 
peared, she poured him out a bountiful bowl of sour milk, the 
favourite beverage of the Bedawy. But before he had swallowed 
a mouthful she struck him with the mallet — the familiar tool used 
by the nomad to drive his tent-pins. The blow crushed his 
temple and he fell dead at her feet. 

Technically, the unfortunate man was not yet protected by the 
law of hospitality, since he had not yet drunk of the oftered bev- 
erage. The reader will recall that Sir Walter Scott makes Sala- 
din careful to strike down the Master of the Templars before he 
has partaken of the cup proffered the guest. So far as the poem 
is taken as authority, Jael cannot be charged with treachery. 
The author of the prose narrative has brought gratuitous re- 
proach upon her by expanding the account.^ 

It is not difficult in reading this ancient song to discover 
Israel in the making. There is as yet no nation, only a loose 
agglomeration of clans. They are not yet the twelve tribes of 

' He makes Jael go out to meet Sisera and invite him to the tent She 
brings him milk, which he drinks and is thereby fully assured of safety. 
She then steals upon him when asleep and drives the tent-pin through his 
head. The poem knows nothing of all this. 



94 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

later tradition. Machir and Gilead are in the same class with 
Zebulun and Reuben. When the scheme of twelve tribes took 
shape, Machir became simply a subdivision of Manasseh. While 
the poet is conscious that all the tribes he names are of the same 
blood, he shows by his taunts how little the tribes themselves rec- 
ognised the claims of kinship. The sons of Reuben debated the 
matter of joining their brethren. But remote from the scene of 
the war, they came to no decision — which was equivalent to an 
adverse decision. Gilead, the other transjordanic tribe, shared 
the inaction of Reuben. Dan and Asher, on the other hand, 
were compromised with the Canaanites, for both of them had an 
interest in the maritime trade : " Dan goes abroad in ships, and 
Asher tarries on the shore, sitting still at the landing-places." 

One of the most remarkable things about the ode is its silence 
concerning Judah, Simeon, and Levi. The Testament of Jacob 
contains a hint that Simeon and Levi had been overtaken by 
some disaster, brought upon them by their own recklessness, and 
the story of Dinah indicates that they had been foremost in hos- 
tility to the Canaanites. We can only conclude that they 
had been practically wiped out not long before the date 
of our story. Silence with reference to Judah, however, must 
be interpreted in the light of what was said above. Mere 
remoteness from the scene of conflict was scarcely enough to 
excuse his absence. Nor does the fact that Canaanite territory 
intervened between him and his brothers justify inaction. The 
only hypothesis which fits the case is that Judah was not of full 
Israelitish blood. The tribe was made up partly of Edomite 
clans, partly of Canaanitish elements, as we see from the story of 
Tamar. It was now in the making, and had not coherence 
enough to be counted a tribe. The Joseph clans were not yet 
ready to recognise the kinship ; in fact, the secret of later dis- 
union is here laid bare. 

At this time the poet estimates Israel's fighting men to be forty 
thousand in number. The modesty of this estimate compared 
with the extravagance of many numerical data in the Hebrew 
historical books makes a favourable impression. 

The strong religious spirit which animates the poem shows the 
exaltation at the time of oppression and conflict. Yahweh is a 
God of war. Though His home is in the southern desert, He 
sees the oppression of His people and marches to their relief. He 



THE HEROES 95 

shows Himself in the storm, and under His leadership heavenly 
powers attack the foe. The enemies of Israel are Yahweh's 
enemies. The curse is pronounced upon Meroz because its 
people did not take the side of Yahweh. The destruction of 
Sisera is an omen for the future, when the enemies of Yahweh and 
of Israel shall all likewise perish. 

The signal deliverance wrought under Deborah's lead made 
less impression upon succeeding generations than was made by 
the incident which comes next in the narrative. So we may 
judge from the complicated literary process which has left its 
marks upon the story of Gideon. Scarcely anywhere are the du- 
plications of the present text so perplexing, and nowhere is it 
more necessary to get at the earliest form of the narrative in or- 
der to make it of historical use.^ 

The scene is laid in Mount Ephraim, where Gideon was Sheikh 
of a clan called Abiezer, with his home at Ophrah. The town 
has not been certainly identified, but was not far from Shechem, 
and was near the edge of the Jordan Valley.^ At the time of 
the story Israel, now thoroughly agricultural, is distressed by Be- 
dawin invaders who are called Midianites. They and their 
cattle, after their wont, destroyed the face of the country like 
the proverbial swarm of locusts. The hero of the story having 
rescued a few stalks of wheat, was obliged to beat them out in 
the wine-press under the cover afforded by the vineyard. Medi- 
tating upon the distress of Israel, he heard a divine voice en- 
couraging him to take the part of deliverer. An altar erected 
on the spot commemorated the theophany for many years after. 

^ The marks of a double narrative and of more than one redaction are 
brought out by Prof. Moore's editions in colours and by Nowack's transla- 
tion, printed in different kinds of type. The two names of the hero (Jerub- 
baal and Gideon) clearly show a double source. The double account of his call 
is easily distinguished. In one document (Judg. 6''-'^*) the Angel of Yahweh 
appears to him, giving unmistakable proofs of his identity. In the other, 
Gideon receives the divine message in a dream of the night, and tests its 
origin by the fleece which is alternately left dry or soaked by the night 
mist according to his prayer (6^^-*®). A later addition is the attempt to ac- 
count for the name Jerubbaal. Originally expressing the faith that The- 
Lord- Fights for Israel, it was no longer understood, and was made to mean 
He-fights-aga inst- Baa I. 

' That it was also near the Great Plain is not so certain, as the data 
which are usually interpreted in favour of such a location occur in later por- 
tions of the narrative, or are themselves uncertain. 



96 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

The distress of Israel was not, however, the moving cause in 
Gideon's exploit. The invasion had come nearer to him per- 
sonally, in that the enemy had murdered many of his immediate 
family. Moved by personal grief and the sacred duty of blood- 
revenge, he was possessed by the spirit of Yahvveh, and called 
the clan to war. Three hundred of the clansmen responded. A 
sudden night -attack threw the undisciplined host of Midian into 
confusion, and they fled toward the desert beyond Jordan. Gid- 
eon and his men followed them to the wilderness and inflicted a 
second defeat upon them, bringing the chiefs back to Ophrah. 
Here, when questioned as to the murders, the prisoners boasted 
of their deed, and were put to death by Gideon's own hand.* 
It is interesting to see the veteran warrior encourage his youthful 
son to flesh his sword upon these enemies of the clan. 

The lack of unity in Israel is brought out in this narrative by 
the behaviour of Succoth and Penuel. These were two ancient 
Israelitish towns, yet both of them refused aid and comfort to 
Gideon's exhausted men. He, on his part, did not hesitate to 
take the ofl*ensive against them for their unbrotherly conduct. 
According to another document, Ephraim took off'ence at not 
having been invited to the war — Gideon, it should be noted, 
belonged to Manasseh. A soft answer from him turned away 
their wrath, but the incident shows the lack of common interest 
in the tribes. 

The piety of Gideon is shown by his consecration of the spoils 
of war. The amulets taken from the enemy were made into an 
ephod, by which we must understand an image of Yahweh. The 
offence taken at the idol by a later writer must not make us 
doubt the hero's good faith in the matter.'^ 

Dignity and authority tend to become hereditary. It is not 
surprising that the sons of Gideon should suppose themselves en- 
titled to some prerogatives on account of their father's heroism. 

* The account of the immense force (thirty-two thousand men) collected 
by Gideon only to be dismissed (except three hundred), is a late embellish- 
ment of the story. The author could conceive how Yahweh could save by 
a small force, but could not suppose only three hundred men to respond to 
the call of a divinely appointed leader. 

^ That the ephod was an object of worship was quite plain to the author 
of Judg. 8^^, who speaks of the worship paid it in terms more forcible than 
polite. The innocence of such a symbol of Yahweh in this period is made 
clear by the language of 17^-*. 



THE HEROES 97 

The Canaanitish cities, as we know, were accustomed to the rule 
of tyrants, either of their own blood, or forced upon them by the 
crown of Egypt. In the absence of a law of primogeniture, the 
most ambitious or the least scrupulous son of a chief secures him- 
self in the reversion by the murder of his brothers. Gideon, to 
be sure, was not a monarch. But such power as he had seemed 
to one of his sons an object of desire. So the family tragedy that 
has so often been enacted in the East on the death of a monarch 
was played on the village stage of Ophrah. 

Gideon was blessed with numerous children. Those at Ophrah 
were of pure Israelite blood. But as the connubium with the 
Canaanites was established, he had a wife of that stock who 
chose — according to a well-known form of Semitic marriage — 
to remain with her own kin at Shechem.^ Her son was there- 
fore recognised as belonging to their blood. At the same time 
he was a recognised son of Gideon, and by the patriarchal system 
in force in Israel he had a claim upon the inheritance. Plausi- 
bly representing to the Shechemites the advantage his governor- 
ship would give his kindred, this man, Abimelech by name, hired 
a band of bravos and cut off the Israelite heirs of Gideon, except 
one lad who made his escape. 

Abimelech therefore became Emir of the district. With his 
band of mercenaries he was probably able to make his authority- 
complete. Our narrative says in so many words that the burgh- 
ers of Shechem and Beth-mi llo made him king at the sacred tree 
in Shechem. Some sort of religious sanction was thus given 
his usurpation. The caustic fable of Jotham, delivered from the 
overhanging mountain, taught the people that the most worthless 
of men are the ones most likely to be intrusted with high office. 
But it clearly implies the kingship of Abimelech. 

The reign, whatever its nature, was short. According to one 
account it was only three years after Abimelech' s installation that 
God sent an evil spirit between him and his subjects. They as- 
serted their ancient freedom and showed their estimate of the 
king's peace by plundering the caravans which traversed the 
country. This, of course, moved the king to take active mea- 
sures against the unruly. The other account sets forth the revolt 
in somewhat different terms. One Gaal, Sheikh of a small clan 

* On the Sadiqa marriage, which is exemplified in the case of Samson 
and elsewhere, cf. W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage, Ch. 3. 



98 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

of fighting men, took up his residence in Shechem. With the 
hope of supplanting Abimelech, he began to stir up dissatis- 
faction. It was the time of the vintage, and the temper of 
the people — always boisterous at this season — showed itself in 
seditious speeches, in which Gaal took the lead. Abimelech's 
Canaanitish blood had advanced him to his position ; now his 
Israelitish blood makes him the subject of abuse. Gaal points 
out that Abimelech and his lieutenant Zebul are of a race once 
subject to the Shechemites as slaves. If he (Gaal) were only at 
the head of affairs, he would openly defy Abimelech, and they 
would try conclusions on the field of battle. Abimelech was 
not in Shechem at the time,^ but the seditious words were re- 
ported to him by his deputy, and he marched promptly against 
the city with his mercenaries. Gaal, under the taunts of Zebul, 
the deputy, went forth before the eyes of the citizens to make 
his threats good. His defeat destroyed what prestige he had, 
and Zebul was able to banish him and the remnant of his troops 
from the city. 

It is perhaps hazardous to combine with this account of the 
suppression of the revolt the story which follows, of a re- 
newed attack upon the city. We may remember that the re- 
volt was not confined to Gaal and his men, but that the 
Shechemites had broken the king's peace by plundering the 
caravans — thus making clear to him that they were resum- 
ing their old independence. To suppress this lawlessness, 
Abimelech could find no better way than to turn his soldiers 
loose upon the citizens when they came out to their fields. 
With one company he seized the unguarded gates while the 
rest were cutting down the townspeople. The sack of the 
city followed. A neighbouring stronghold bore the name 
Tower of Shechem, and the people, crowding into it, sought 
safety from attack, but the tower was burnt over their heads and 
all of them perished.^ At Thebez, also, one of the towns which 
sympathised in the revolt, an attempt was made to burn the 
tower in which the people had taken refuge. But here a woman 

^ He had taken up his abode in an otherwise unknown Arumah (Judg. 
9*^) — the name should also be restored in v.^^ (Moore). 

2 The location of this Tower of Shechem is unknown. It was apparently 
a separate place — not the citadel of Shechem itself. Thebez has been iden- 
tified in Tubaz, eight miles northeast of Shechem. 



THE HEROES 99 

threw a millstone from the roof and struck the incautious general 
to the ground. To avoid the ignominy of death at the hand of a 
woman he ordered his squire to thrust him through. Thus per- 
ished an energetic but unscrupulous ruler. The piety of the Bib- 
lical author sees in his death the divine vengeance u[)on fratricide. 

The attention we have given this episode is justified by the 
light it throws upon the times. We see Israelites and Canaanites 
settled in immediate proximity, both being cultivators of the 
soil. The Israehtes bad earlier been subject to the Canaanites, 
but, owing to Gideon's generalship, the relations were now re- 
versed. The parties lived together and intermarried, perhaps 
worshipped the same Baal ; but the race feeling was strong. 
Abimelech, though he raised himself to power by the aid of 
the Canaanites, was supported mainly by the Israelites. His en- 
deavour to establish a settled government was wrecked partly by 
race jealousies, partly by the tribal sense of freedom which does 
not readily tolerate any authority. In the conflict the city of 
Shechem was destroyed. That Israel also suffered severely can 
hardly be doubted.^ 

The part which an energetic captain can play in a state of 
society such as we are now considering, is illustrated by Gaal, 
the leader of the revolt against Abimelech. A more striking in- 
stance is that of Jephthah, to whom we come next.^ What we 
learn about him is that he was an outlaw who gathered about 
him a band of kindred spirits who acknowledged him as captain. 
Sparing his own people, he fixed his haunts in the region of 
Bashan. Hence he was recalled by the necessities of his kindred. 
Chronically at war with their neighbours, these were now deeply 
involved with the powerful tribe of Amnion. In their extremity, 
the Sheikhs of Gilead bethought themselves of their exiled brother. 
A formal proposition was made to Jephthah, and accepted by him, 
to the effect that he should become their ruler, if only he would 

^ A variant tradition of the destruction of Shechem is contained in the le- 
gend of Dinah. With the knowledge at our command, we cannot trace that 
story to this event. The possibility that this is its origin may, however, be 
kept in mind. 

^ As already intimated, the minor judges cannot be taken as historical char- 
acters. For this reason we may pass over Tola and Jair, who are mentioned 
between Abimelech and Jephthah. The names, in fact, seem to be clan names. 
The reader, however, will be interested in Prof. Cheyne's attempt to transfer 
a part of Jephthah's story to Jair, Encyc. Biblica, s v. " Jephthah." 



100 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

defeat the oppressor — in the mind of the writer, at least, the suc- 
cessful warrior attains to something like kingly power. The 
agreement was solemnly ratified in the sanctuary at Mizpah, and 
here also Jephthah made the vow, to us so repugnant, that if 
successful he would sacrifice to Yahweh the first person that 
should come out of the doors of his house to meet his victorious 
return. That he intended a human being to be the victim is 
evident from the form of the vow. If evidence were lacking 
that human sacrifice was known to the religion of Israel, we 
should find it here. Nor does the writer of the account revolt 
from the deed — to him its pathos arises simply from the fact 
that a young woman perishes in her virginity, and thus the stock 
of Jephthah is cut off. The view of the time was, no doubt, 
that the vow was effective in securing the help of Yahweh, just 
as at a later time Chemosh was roused from his lethargy by a 
similar sacrifice on the part of the king of Moab.* 

To this pathetic incident and its yearly commemoration, we 
owe the preservation of the history, which in itself has no 
great importance. Jephthah' s dynasty ended with himself. 
There is no evidence that his rule (if such -we call it) extended 
beyond the region of Gilead. In any case it had no influence 
on the main stream of Israel's history. One thing further is 
noticeable in connexion with it — the turbulence of Ephraim, 
which tribe took offence at not having been called to the war. 
Jephthah had not the diplomatic temper of Gideon. The result 
was a fierce conflict between the two tribes, in which Ephraim was 
worsted. To the incident our language owes the word Shibbo- 
leth — a monument of the test applied by the Gileadites to their 
brethren. Inability to pronounce according to the prevailing 
mode has often been inconvenient, seldom fatal as here, though 
there are some parallel instances known to history.^ 

* 2 Kings 3 26 t — the sacrifice brings grraf wrath upon Israel. Had there 
been no human sacrifices in Israel, the protest embodied in the account of 
Abraham's offering Isaac would have been needless. A somewhat extended 
discussion of the subject may be found in Kamphausen's Verhdltniss des 
Menschenopfers zur Israelitischen Religion (1896). Recent excavators in 
Palestine claim to have found evidence of human sacrifice at Gezer— whether 
in the pre-Israelite period is not yet certain ; Palestine Exploration Fund, 
Quarterly Statementy January, 1903, p. 19. 

2 To the instances given by Moore {Commentary, p. 309) may be added 
one by Doughty, Arabia Deserta, I, p. 155. The smallness of the scale 



THE HEROES lOI 

No more extraordinary champion of the cause of religion has 
arisen in the whole course of history than the one who next 
claims our attention among the judges of Israel — Samson the son 
of Manoah. The piety of later times made him, like Isaac or 
Samuel, a special gift to a mother long disappointed in her hope 
for children, and described the theophany which gave promise 
of his greatness. But even the faith of Judaism must have found 
it difficult to discover Israel's deliverer in this boisterous knight. 
Samson was anything but a theocratic ruler of God's people. He 
was not even a deliverer after the pattern of Gideon or Jephthah. 
It is easy to suppose that the piety of Gideon or Jephthah, 
different as it was from the piety of later times, exerted a dis- 
tinct influence in favour of Israel's loyalty to Yahweh. But 
we can find no trace of such influence exerted by Samson. He 
is simply a hero of folklore — a champion possessed of great physi- 
cal strength, who delights in inflicting mischief upon the Philis- 
tines; fitful in his rage, and fitful also in his good nature; led 
by his sensuality into dangerous situations from which he frees 
himself by unexpected feats ; falling a victim to a designing 
woman, but ending his life with dignity in a supreme effort for 
revenge. 

The discrepancy between the story and its setting is strong 
evidence for its truthfulness. Certainly the exploits could not 
have been invented by the authors who have handed the narra- 
tive down to us, because the story so poorly teaches the lesson 
these authors have at heart. Barring a little natural exaggeration 
therefore, we accept the main incidents as historical, not mythi- 
cal, only slightly legendary. Their value to us is very great 
because of the light which they throw upon the life of the time. 
For the advancement of Israel's nationality they may be said to 
have no value at all. 

The scene of this part of the history is on the western edge of 
the hill country. Here the tribe of Dan had pushed forward in 
the front of the Israelite invasion. But they were met by a 

on which this history is enacted may be seen when we notice that Amman 
(Rabbath Ammon) is not more than twenty miles in a straight line from 
the centre of Gilead. The long argument of Jephthah about Israel's title to 
Gilead, (Judg. ii"-28) is not by the author of the main history. The 
editor in adapting it to its present position, has not observed the fact that 
it originally referred to a controversy with Moab instead of Ammon. 



I02 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

counter-invasion which had already taken possession of the mari- 
time plain. The Philistines were pirate bands who had ravaged 
the coasts of Palestine and given much trouble to the Egyptian 
territories for some time. Like the Northmen of our history, 
they overran the weaker civilisation of the coast districts, settled 
among the older inhabitants, and gradually became amalgamated 
with them. In the fertile grain lands of the Shephela they had 
made themselves masters, and now formed a confederacy of five 
bands, under five chiefs or princes. At the time we are consid- 
ering, they had (like the Hebrews) adopted the language of 
Canaan.^ How far customs and religion had been assimilated, 
cannot clearly be made out; but they alone, among the inhab- 
itants of Canaan, are stigmatised as uncircumcised. After becom- 
ing masters of the maritime plain they had attacked the high- 
lands, and had made the nearer tribes of Israel tributaries. 
Among these the Danites were their nearest neighbours. In the 
story of Samson we see that the relations between the two peo- 
ples were friendly enough. The connubium is recognised — 
Manoah's protest against Samson's Philistine wife is probably the 
reflection of later ideas. The Israelites seem to have accepted 
the situation, paying tribute to escape the harassment of war. A 
part of the Danites, probably the most adventurous spirits, had 
preferred to seek a new home in the north, as already related. 
Those that were left bowed to the Philistine yoke. 

Certainly there is no settled enmity where Samson can so easily 
obtain a wife. The woman's preference for her own kin, shown 
in the betrayal of the secret of the riddle, is only what may be 
expected in Oriental society. Samson's outbreaks are acts of 
private revenge such as might occur in tribal society at any time. 
Individually he is wronged by his wife's treachery; he leaves 
her in anger, and is wronged again by her father's giving her 
to another ; individually he takes his revenge on the whole clan 
by burning up the standing corn.^ His people do not make 

' On the Philistines, besides the commentaries to Judges, compare W. M. 
Muller, Asien tend Etiropa, pp. 387-390, and Studien zur Vorderasiatischen 
Geschichte, II (1900). 

2 When the grain is dead ripe it is easily set on fire. Modern travellers 
remark on the care taken by the Fellahin to prevent fire spreading in time 
of harvest. 

Samson's marriage was of the Sadiqa type already commented upon in the 
case of Gideon. 



THE HEROES IO3 

the quarrel their own ; in fact, when the PhiUstines demand 
him, they hand him over for punishment. This does not pre- 
vent their enjoyment of his successful feats. 

How far the details of these stories are accurate, is a question 
of minor importance. Our interest in the narrative is excited 
less by the remarkable incidents than by the religious concep- 
tions revealed. Samson's strength is in his hair. This points to 
an estimation of the hair of which we have numerous parallels in 
other religions. In the Old Testament this estimate is most 
fully expressed in the Nazirite. A Nazirite is a man, who, for a 
time, is in a state of special ceremonial consecration. As a part 
of his consecration, and as its external sign, he lets his hair 
grow long. The Hebrew writer regards Samson as a life-long 
Nazirite. The only other mark of consecration given in his 
case, is abstinence from the fruit of the vine. It is clear that this 
marks his consecration as a consecration to Yah web, the God of 
the desert. The vine was sacred to another god, and therefore 
forbidden. 

There is no other Old Testament instance in which long hair 
is associated with great physical strength; but it is easy to trace 
the connexion of ideas. Samson's great strength was a special 
gift of Yahweh. His feats are, in fact, ascribed to a distinct 
inrush of the Spirit of Yahweh.^ Should the consecration be 
broken, the special relation with Yahweh would no longer exist. 
The cutting of the hair breaks the consecration — ''he did not 
know that Yahweh had departed from him" is the assertion of 
the text. The mechanical nature of the conception is evident in 
the sequel, for when the hair grew again, the strength returned. 
Amazing as it is to us to find a rehgion in which Yahweh cared 
more for the hair than for the chastity of His devotee, we are 
obliged to admit that such a religion existed in Israel in the time 
of the Judges. 

Reviewing the period which we call by the name of the Judges 
we see that it is really the second stage of the conquest. Israel 

Judg. I4«'i9, 15^*' It is a serious question whether, in this period, 
Yahweh was not identified with the Sun-god. The name Samson indicates 
consecration to the Sun, to whom there was a sanctuary (Beth Shemesh) in 
the region. 

On the connexion of long hair with religious consecration, see W, R. 
Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 305-315, Frazer, The Golden Bough, I, 
P- 193 f-. 11. 328- 



104 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

has now made its way into many parts of the land. It has 
adopted the agricultural life and has some fortified towns of its 
own. In other towns it lives in conjunction with the Canaanites 
— probably each race has a separate quarter to itself. Treaties 
existed which secured the rights of the parties. But in the absence 
of a central authority these treaties were easily disregarded. 
Some consciousness there was that all the Israelite clans were of 
one blood, and that the Canaanites were not of their race. But 
this consciousness was not strong enough to keep the tribes from 
warring on each other. 

No people ever reached this stage of civiHsation without hav- 
ing a literature, and we must suppose that the sagas which have 
come down to us were already circulated. The sense of unity 
was probably fostered by the stories of the common ancestor 
Jacob. The poem which we call the Testament of Jacob dates 
in part from this period. It describes the situation of the tribes 
and their character. We hear of Reuben, who still clings to the 
nomad life, too passionate, too uncontrolled, to attain to any- 
thing better. Simeon and Levi are condemned for their ruthless- 
ness and threatened with extinction. Issachar is still under 
bondage to the Canaanite, a bondage that he threw off under 
Barak. Dan and Gad are in constant warfare with their neigh- 
bours, and Benjamin also lives a freebooter life. Asher, Naphtali, 
and Ephraim are in possession of a fruitful country from which 
they obtain abundance of dainties. 

We are here a long way from the desert life, and the sagas, as 
we hav6 seen, reflect the view of the peasant rather than the 
Bedawy. The curse of Cain is that he lives a nomad ; the lot of 
Jacob is praised above that of Esau. At the same time, the 
shepherd life has not lost its charm. The Israelite delights in the 
shrewdness of the arch-shepherd Jacob, his ancestor. So, too, he 
recounts with admiration and something like awe, Israel's night 
contest with a divine being, in which the human hero came off 
conqueror. Such stories fostered the sense of unity among the 
tribes. 

More effective still was the common belief in Yahweh as the 
God of Israel. In some cases He is thought of as still dweUing 
in His original home in the south. It is thence that He comes 
to the help of Israel against Sisera. But He is also active in the 
land and seems early to have acquired a title to it. It is His 



THE HEROES 105 

spirit which rushes upon Gideon and Samson and fits them for 
their work. How far He was identified with the local Baals we 
cannot clearly make out. But we must suppose that at the sanc- 
tuary of Bethel (for example) Yahweh was the God that was 
worshipped. To Him Gideon consecrated an Ephod, and it 
was He to whom the unlucky Micah dedicated that image which 
the Danites appropriated by the right of the strongest. 

The question of historical interest was whether the sense of 
unity, racial and religious, would be able to work out a real polit- 
ical union. At the close of the period the prospect was not 
hopeful. The incident with which the Book of Judges concludes 
is calculated to bring this into view and may appropriately open 
the next chapter. 



CHAPTER VII 

THE EARLY MONARCHY 

In the first flush of invasion Israel had carried the highlands. 
But the Canaanites pertinaciously maintained themselves in the 
plains. The Philistines were seasoned warriors and were able 
not only to master the maritime plain but also to push their con- 
quests into the hill country. Their relations to Dan we have 
already discussed. In Benjamin they claimed the supremacy, and 
their Resident, perhaps supported by a garrison, was established 
at Gibeah as an instrument for the collection of tribute and a 
sign of the subjection of Israel. To make common cause against 
such a foe would seem to be the part of common prudence. 
And yet the tribes were quarrelling among themselves. 

The incoherence of the people who called themselves Beni 
Israel (Sons of Israel.) is strikingly brought out by the concluding 
narrative of the Book of Judges, to which a brief allusion has 
already been made. Unfortunately the story has been worked 
over by a later hand so as to teach the very opposite lesson. 
What we may reasonably suppose to be the original story is 
something as follows : ^ 

A man who dwelt in Mount Ephraim had a wife from Bethle- 
hem. In a fit of anger the woman left him and returned to her 
father's house. After a time her husband sought her and they 
were reconciled. The hospitality of the father made it difficult 
for them to get away, but finally, one afternoon, they made a 
start. The day was far gone when they reached Jerusalem, and 
the servant who was with them proposed they should lodge in 
that city. The master, however, did not trust the hospitality 

^ The story in Judges 19-21 shows more marks of late date than any 
other portion of the book. As it stands, it pictures Israel as a theocratic 
community, moving as one man under the lead of the priestly oracle, purg- 
ing out iniquity from its midst, exterminating men, women, and children in 
the way of duty, yet mourning over the loss of one of the twelve tribes and 
taking measures to restore it. All this is evidently late. But the kernel of 
the story seems to be old and this I venture to use. 

X06 



THE EARLY MONARCHY I07 

of Gentiles, and preferred to go on till they should reach an 
Israelite town. This they found in Gibeah of Benjamin, but not 
the hospitality for which they looked. No attention was paid 
them as they stood in the public square, until an old man, not a 
native of the place, took them to his house. The rest of the 
people were not content with the sin of omission. They invaded 
the home of hospitality. By threats of the vilest description 
they forced the stranger to deliver his wife to them, and her 
they abused so that she died under their hands. 

To the appeal for vengeance, enough Israelites responded to 
make war upon Benjamin — for this tribe made common cause with 
the criminals. The result was the almost complete extermination 
of the tribe. The rest of Israel had forsworn the connubium 
with them, and the survivors were provided with wives only by a 
scheme which reminds us of the rape of the Sabines. This is 
what the author, who lived after the establishment of royal author- 
ity, regarded as each man's doing that which was right in his 
own eyes — inhospitality, violation of the rights of the guest, 
rape, tribal defence of violence, robbery of maidens from neigh- 
bouring towns, internecine conflict. It is probably not acci- 
dental that an attempt to remedy these evils was made in the 
tribe which had suff'ered most deeply from them. 

The narrative of the origin of the kingdom which has come 
down to us in the Books of Samuel shows a strange confusion in 
the treatment of this subject. In the looseness of the tribal or- 
ganisation, which was fitted to cope neither with external evils 
nor with internal lawlessness, some men must have looked to the 
monarchy as the institution essential to the prosperity, or indeed 
the existence, of Israel. Our narrative records such a desire on 
the part of the people as a whole, but goes on to stigmatise it 
as contrary to the will of Yahweh. We see here the effect of 
later experience. The monarchy, in its actual working, fell far 
short of the ideal. Hence, there grew up the conviction that the 
theocracy was Israel's true constitution. It is this judgment 
which has coloured so much of the narrative now before us. Its 
inconsistency with other parts of the story is evident. To one 
author, the king was a gift of God to His people; to another, 
the king was granted only under protest, and as a punishment 
for the people's sins. There can be no doubt that the former is 
the older view, and our history must carefully trace the document 



I08 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

in which it appears. This document is, in fact, of the utmost 
value for the reconstruction of the period.^ 

The hero of the narrative is Saul, the son of Kish. He is in- 
troduced to us as a man of good family, his father being a well- 
to-do farmer.^ Nobihty there was none in Israel, though no 
doubt purity of blood was highly esteemed, as it always has 
been among the Arabs. Saul, though he had attained to man- 
hood, was still under the paternal direction and occupied in 
the work of the farm with apparently no higher ambition, when 
an errand on which he was sent brought him a new impulse. 
The asses had strayed, and Saul made a considerable journey to 
seek them, but without success. As he was about to give up the 
search, the trusty servant who accompanied him suggested that 
they inquire of a seer of whom he had heard. This man (Samuel 
by name) was a member of the class which is found in all stages 
of society — clairvoyants, mediums, possessors of second sight — 
to whom those less gifted apply for counsel, direction, or knowl- 
edge of the future. The recovery of lost or stolen property has 
always been one of the things for which they have been consulted. 
We readily understand how Saul's servant advises a visit to Sam- 
uel, how Saul hesitates because he has not the customary honora- 
rium, how, when reassured on this point, he consents to go. 

Samuel, however, was more than an ordinary seer. By his 
strong sense, his probity, and his devotion to the interests of his 
people he had established himself as the leading man in the little 
community in which he dwelt. A village feast was at hand, at which 
the heads of families partook of the commor sacrifice. Samuel was 
the one chosen to preside on this as on all public occasions. As 
Saul and his servant entered the village they met him going 

* The composite character of the Books of Samuel (originally one Book) 
is evident at a glance. For the analysis, the reader may be referred to 
Budde's Richter und Samuel, his edition of the Hebrew text in Haupt's 
Sacred Books of the Old Testament (1894), and the present writer's com- 
mentary in the International Critical Cofumentary (1 899). On the text, 
which has suffered much in transmission, use also Wellhausen's Text der 
Backer SamttePs {!?>'] i), and Driver's Notes on the Hebrew Text of the 
Books of Samuel (1890). The critical questions of both kinds are also 
treated in the latest (1903) commentaries of Budde and Nowack. 

2 He is described as gibbor hail, which is erroneously translated mighty 
man of valour. It means, simply, a man who has landed property, and 
therefore is qualified to bear arms, cf. 2 K. 15 ^". 



THE EARLY MONARCHY IO9 

up to the sanctuary. Courteously inviting the strangers to ac- 
company him, he made them the guests of honour at the feast, 
and afterward took them to his house for the night. In the 
morning he took Saul aside, and announced the divine choice 
which made him the deliverer of Israel for whom the people were 
longing. This message he confirmed by the solemn rite of 
anointing — a consecration to God which makes the recipient a 
sacred person.^ 

This picturesque anecdote is an early attempt to give the 
monarchy divine sanction. To understand it fully, we need to 
take into view its sequel, where we find Saul among the 
prophets. As he returns to his native town of Gibeah, he meets 
a company of Nebiitn coming down from the sanctuary in sol- 
emn procession. They are preceded by a band of music and are 
engaged in the enthusiastic acts of worship associated with so 
many oriental religions, and exemplified in the ancient Galli as 
well as the modern dervishes. As Saul meets them, he is over- 
come by the impulse which possesses them, and himself joins in 
their extravagances so as to call out the wonder of his fellow- 
townsmen. In the parallel account^ Saul is so entirely pos- 
sessed by the Spirit that he is incapable of carrying out the 
plans upon which he has set his heart. He loses all will of his 
own, and marches on the road laid out for him by a higher power. 
Arriving at the company of enthusiasts he shares their extrava- 
gances even to the stripping off of his garments, and finally, with 
senses overcome, he lies in a trance all that day and all that 
night. 

We have here one of the most remarkable institutions of Israel's 
early religion. These raving prophets can be understood only 
by comparison with their fellows, the Galli and dervishes, to 
whom reference has already been made. Such prophets are found 
in the Canaanitish religion, where they dance about the altar. 
From the Canaanites the institution passed over to Israel. What 

^ The anointing of the sacred pillar at Bethel (Gen. 28 ^®) gives us light 
upon the original significance of the act. The rite was very ancient in Ca- 
naan according to the El Amarna tablets (Winckler's edition I, p. 99). An 
extended discussion of the subject is given by Weinel in the Zeitschr. f. d. 
Alttest. Wissensch., 1898, pp. 1-82. 

^i Sam. 19 18-24 is undoubtedly a later embellishment of the original ac- 
count which we read in 10 ^-'^ But the embellishments make clear how the 
original account was understood by the earliest readers. 



no OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

now interests us is the appearance of the prophets in the history 
of Saul. We must remember that it was the time of PhiHstine 
oppression. If rehef was to come, it must come by a new rehg- 
ious impulse. In the earlier time we have seen that a religious 
impulse brought Israel out of Egypt. It was probably a religious 
impulse also that nerved the tribes against Sisera. Now, under 
the Philistine oppression, earnest men began to have accessions 
of zeal for Yahweh. The zealots (as the dervishes so often have 
done) stirred up the people, and their enthusiasm became conta- 
gious.^ The monarchy of Saul was the fruit of the revival. 
This is indicated both by Saul's connexion with Samuel and by 
his relations with the prophets. The later form of the story joins 
the two and makes Samuel the head of the prophetic movement. 
The part played by Samuel in this account is that of a prophet 
in the later sense — he is a revealer of the will of God, and the 
organ by which the new king is appointed. It was inevitable 
that a later time, looking back to the theocracy as its ideal, 
should magnify his part in the history of Israel. From this point 
of view we readily understand the opening chapters of the book 
of Samuel, for in these chapters Samuel himself appears in the 
light of a divinely appointed ruler — a second Moses — greater than 
a Gideon or a Jephthah. In this office of theocratic head of the 
people he takes his place in the series of Judges, succeeding Eli, 

^The word which we translate prophet, nabi\ is yet an unsolved riddle in 
the Hebrew vocabulary. The most natural hypothesis is that it is a bor- 
rowed word. As to the fact of the nabVs enthusiastic or orgiastic behaviour 
the passage just discussed is sufficient evidence. In the same line is the ex- 
travagance of some of the later prophets, the use of the verb ' prophesy' for 
the raving of a (feigned) madman, and the characterisation of a young 
prophet as crazy. The dancing of Canaanitish prophets or priests about the 
altar is the prelude to oracular utterances, cf. Proceedings of the Soc. Bib. 
Arch. XXI, p. 253, and i Kings, 1821-26, where the prophets of Baal are 
described; also W. M. Miiller, Studien ziir Vorderasiatischen Geschichte, 
II, p. 17. As there was a god Nebo {Nabu) in Babylon who was the pro- 
claimer of truth or wisdom, it does not seem far-fetched to connect the nabf 
with him, especially as his worship had spread to Palestine at a very early 
day — a mountain in Moab and a town in Judah bore his name. The nabV 
would then be one possessed by Nebo. On the god Nabu, cf. Jastrow, Relig- 
ion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 124-130; Schrader, Keilinsch. und Altes 
Testament, ^ p. 399 ff. Enthusiastic dancing about the altar is one of the 
earliest expressions of religious emotion. A Baal of the sacred dance is 
known to us from an inscription discovered near Beirut, Baethgen, Beitrage 
zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte, p. 25. 



THE EARLY MONARCHY III 

whose sons were cut off because of their wickedness. The well- 
known narrative gives us a charming picture of faith and piety in 
the person of Hannah. The childless woman comes to the sanct- 
uary to pray for a son, and in her strong desire vows, in case he is 
granted, to give him to the sanctuary as its servant. The boy is 
born and faithfully dedicated according to the vow. His fidelity 
is brought into strong relief by the contrasted conduct of the sons 
of Eli. These are types of the arrogant priests who care for their 
office only so far as it fills their bellies. Regardless of ancient 
custom, they pick for themselves the best pieces of the sacrifices, 
and with indecent haste send their servants to claim their 
share even before the sacred rites have been duly performed.* 
Their weak and indulgent father is warned on their account, but 
in vain. The sons are destroyed in battle ; the father is himself 
killed by shock at the loss of that which he held dearer even than 
his sons — the Ark of Yahweh. In this tale of disaster Samuel 
stands out as the faithful servant of Yahweh. While yet a youth 
he receives a revelation directed against the house of Eli. Later 
he is favoured with others which establish him in the opinion of 
the people. Finally he is the recognised vindicator of the people, 
at whose prayer the Philistines suffer a miraculous defeat, and 
come no more into the border of Israel.^ 

This whole account must be received with the greatest caution. 
If Samuel were the theocratic ruler of the people and at the same 
time their successful leader against their enemies, what need for 
the monarchy at all ? The answer of the author would be that 
there was no need for a monarchy ; that the call for a king was 
simply a manifestation of the depravity of the people. This he 
brings out by making Samuel treat the demand for a king as 
apostasy from Yahweh. Samuel is in this narrative intended 
to make Saul superfluous. The construction of history is an ideal 
one which quite ignores the actual sequence of events. 

While we are obliged to resign the Samuel of these earlier 
chapters, there is one section which may give us some historical 

^ I Sam. 2 ^^-^T. At first sight the passage seems to be ancient. But 
on reflection we see that the author has no really serious charges to bring 
against the priests. Contrasting his indictment with that of Hosea, for 
example, we find it expressive of advanced ritualism and an exaggerated 
estimate of sacred things. 

* I Sam. 7 ^^. This chapter is certainly late. 



112 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

material. The scene of Eli's ministration is the sanctuary of 
Shiloh.^ This was a substantial structure in which the central 
sacred object was the Ark, already known to us in the story of the 
exodus. Eli the priest is, like Samuel, an idealised figure presented 
to us as one of the Judges of Israel.^ When Philistine aggression 
drove the people to arms, a battle was fought in the country be- 
low Shiloh. Israel was defeated in the first collision and the 
Sheikhs determined to bring the Ark from Shiloh that it might 
lead them to victory. The position accorded to Yahweh as the 
God of battles made this a natural step, and if we may trust the 
history of the exodus, the Ark was from earlier times put in 
front of the host in order that it might insure the defeat of the 
enemy. Only so can we understand the ancient cry with which 
it was greeted : 

Rise, Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered ! 
And let thy haters flee before thee ! ^ 

The superstition which saw in the Ark a sure pledge of victory 
was rebuked by the sequel. Whether the IsraeHtes were over- 
confident or not, the Philistines seem to have fought with the 
courage of despair. The army of Israel was annihilated ; the 
bearers of the Ark were slain ; the palladium itself fell into the 
hands of the enemy ; Shiloh was razed to the ground. The 
prophet Jeremiah could point to it as an instructive example of 
God's vengeance upon a place which once He had chosen as His 
habitation. 

The Ark could not long be detained away from its own peo- 
ple. The captors, to show the superiority of their own god, 
placed it as a trophy in the Temple of Dagon.* But mysteri- 
ous visitations upon the idol made them uneasy in the suspicion 
that after all Yahweh might be the stronger. The suspicion was 
confirmed by an outbreak of the bubonic plague in the city where 
the Ark was detained. Suspicion became certainty when the 

' The locality which still bears the name Seilun is accurately described in 
Judg. 21^^; cf. Moore's note on the passage and his references. 

^ I Sam. 4 ^^, a redactional insertion, but one which correctly interprets 
the traditional position of EH. 

^ Num. lo ^^ ; the section is ascribed to J by the majority of critics. 

* The nature of this Philistine divinity is still obscure. His name occurs 
in Assyrian, cf. Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria^ p. 208 f. 



THE EARLY MONARCHY II3 

plague followed the route which the Ark took when sent from 
city to city. At last the popular terror became uncontrollable. 
The chiefs were compelled to return the dangerous emblem or 
depository of superhuman power. Every effort was now made to 
conciliate the offended deity. A suitable votive offering was 
prepared and placed with the Ark itself upon a new, and there- 
fore unpolluted, cart. The untaught kine obeyed the divine 
impulse and took the nearest way to the territory of Israel.* 

The sacred object was able to show its power on friends as 
well as foes. At Beth-shemesh its death-dealing holiness proved 
destructive to seventy men, and the people hastened to get rid 
of so dangerous a treasure. At Kirjath-jearim, whither it was 
carried, it was more placable or was better treated, and here it 
rested till the time of David. ^ There is some confusion in the 
sources as to the name of the place, which is later called Baal 
Judah. As we know Kirjath-jearim to have been one of the 
Canaanite cities to a comparatively late date, we may conjecture 
that this accounts for the change of name in the narrative of 
David's life. 

Is this incident of the capture and return of the Ark historical? 
Serious objection is made to it by some scholars on the ground 
that if once captured the Ark was not likely to be restored. That 
it should be captured is not improbable. It was the custom to 
carry it into battle. We cannot suppose it impossible that it 
should ever fall into the hands of the enemy. We cannot ac- 
count for the story of its capture without some basis of fact — the 
pride of Israel would have resented the invention of such a story. 
And, if captured, there is no reason why it might not make the 
impression which is so vividly described in the narrative. The 
God of Israel had more than once shown His power. A 
plague breaking out about the time of the capture would quite 
certainly be interpreted as the stroke of His wrath. To send 
Him back to His own people would be the dictate of common 
prudence. The sobriety of the narrative is seen in its limiting 
the power of Yahweh to the pestilence, and not making Him 

* According to Bavarian legend the corpse of Saint Emmeram was in like 
manner committed to a yoke of oxen, who were allowed to choose their own 
way; Usener, Religions gesch. Untersuchungen, IH., p. 137. 

* I Sam. 5 '-7 ^ The section is older than the narrative in which it is 
imbedded. 



114 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

overthrow the armies of the PhiHstines in some pubHc way. The 
same sobriety is seen in the position which is given the Ark it- 
self. The sacred object is not made the sole and central symbol 
of the Godhead to all Israel. The loss of it did not affect the 
chief sanctuaries in the least, nor did its return make Kirjath-jea- 
rim the only place of legitimate worship. Samuel never visited 
it after its return, never tried to restore it to his own tribe or 
city. Saul paid it no attention. In all these respects we see 
that our narrative has been kept free from the representations 
of a later age. 

The incident of the capture of the Ark is calculated to give us 
a vivid conception of the Phihstine power. If that power was 
sufficient to carry off the Ark and conquer its defenders in a 
pitched battle, what might it not accomplish? In truth, the 
Philistine oppression was severe, and its severity was not miti- 
gated by the infliction of the plague. The paragraph in the 
history which speaks of the Israelites as being totally disarmed, 
is indeed an exaggeration. But the fact that a Philistine Resident 
was stationed at Gibeah, in the very heart of Benjamin, shows 
the galling nature of the foreign yoke. From this yoke Saul 
sought to deliver Israel, and though he himself accomplished 
little, he kept the spirit of the nation alive, and prepared the 
way for his greater successor. It has been his misfortune that 
his exploits have been compared with those of this successor. 

The kingship was not, as a matter of fact, conferred upon Saul 
by the word of Samuel. The election by lot, which is related in 
connexion with the demand of the people for a king, is an imagi- 
native construction of legend. Saul became king by an act of 
prowess like that which brought Gideon into prominence in 
Israel. It was again the Bedawin which gave occasion for a 
great deed. The Ammonites made a raid upon their Israelite 
neighbours, besieging Jabesh Gilead.^ The townsmen, rather 
than see their country devastated, offered to make an arrange- 
ment such as often existed between two tribes in that period. 
They doubtless expected to pay tribute as the price of peace — the 
proposition was in line with what Israelites and Canaanites had 
often done. But Nahash, the Sheikh of the invaders, insisted on 
terms hitherto unheard of. He would put out the right eye of 

1 JVadi Yabis, which falls into the Jordan valley about twenty miles 
south of the Lake of Galilee, seems to preserve the ancient name. 



THE EARLY MONARCHY II5 

every male in the town, and would " lay it as a reproach on all 
Israel." The sarcasm which Arab poets know how to pour upon 
cowardice, sufficiently shows what Israel would suffer in case this 
outrage were infficted upon their brethren. Whether Nahash had 
a personal wrong to avenge (it has been suggested that he himself 
had lost an eye in battle), or whether it was a case of sheer bar- 
barity, we cannot now determine. Secure in the supposed weak- 
ness of Israel, he allowed the men of Jabesh to seek help among 
their kin. Messengers hastened across the Jordan, probably with 
no very sanguine hopes of rallying their disunited brethren to 
their support. 

It was with no thought of Saul's authority or influence that the 
messengers came to Gibeah, for the king assumed neither author- 
ity nor title. ^ After the religious exaltation of his meeting with 
the dervishes, he had quietly returned to the work of the field. 
When the news came of the hard fate of Jabesh, the people broke 
out in weeping, but no one thought of sending for Saul. It was 
only as he returned from his day's work that he discovered the 
commotion, and learned its cause. Then a mighty impulse 
seized him. The Spirit of God rushed upon him"^ as it used to 
rush upon Samson. He hewed his oxen in pieces, and sent the 
pieces to all Israel with the message: "Whosoever comes not 
after Saul, so shall his oxen be treated." The answer was a 
muster of the i^eople so prompt, that the Ammonites were taken 
by surprise and thoroughly routed. The deliverance of Jabesh 
was complete, and, as in the cases of Gideon and Jephthah, the 
event marked Saul as the divinely chosen chief of the people. With 
Saul, however, there was a distinct advance. The assumption of 
the title of king showed a purpose to inaugurate a more stable gov- 
ernment than had existed before. To the people, first and last, the 
chief office of the king was to lead them in battle against their ene- 
mies. The new dignity was conferred at the ancient sanctuary 

' There is a possibility, however, that Jabesh and Benjamin regarded 
themselves as closely akin. The account of the attack of the other tribes 
upon Benjamin tells of the Benjamites receiving wives from Jabesh (Judg. 21 
*^'5), and the piety of the Jabeshites toward Saul after his death argues for 
some uncommon bond of union. The elaborate conclusions of Winckler, 
nowever {Keilinschriften und A lies Testament^, p. 227, and Geschichte 
Israels, II, pp. 155-158), seem to rest on a slender basis. 

^i Sam. II ^ Judg. 14 «'^9, i^'^ ; the verb is the same in the four 
passages. 



Il6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

of Gilgal, where, after offering sacrifices, Saul and the men of 
Israel rejoiced exceedingly/ 

That Israel should weaken itself by fighting with Amnion, 
could be looked upon only with pleasure by the Philistines. The 
organisation of Benjamin under a king was also a small matter in 
their eyes. How the internal affairs of their tributaries were 
conducted did not concern them, so long as the tribute was not 
endangered. The kingship of Saul can hardly have been recog- 
nised (at least at first) beyond the boundaries of his own tribe. 
The haughty and turbulent Ephraimites were not likely to sub- 
mit to him, and Judah, as we know, was only very loosely con- 
nected with Israel. We may suppose that the new king spent 
some time quietly in establishing his power before he ventured to 
try conclusions with the main enemy. Our narrative is silent ex- 
cept with regard to the leading events, and gives us no clew as 
to the chronology of the period. It tells us only that Saul en- 
listed three thousand men, with whom he garrisoned Bethel, 
Michmash, and Geba.'' These were important points for the 
control of the highways, both the one running north and south, 
and the one running across the country into the Jordan valley. 
As the security of the roads is one of the chief cares of the king, 
this measure is quite intelligible. These fortresses were also well 
situated to discover and check any invading force. 

When we first met Saul, he was described to us as a young 
man. The next adventure presents him as more mature in years, 
father of a son who is capable of bearing arms — the well-known 
and well-beloved Jonathan.^ The name tempts us to linger, 
for the Old Testament writers have dealt lovingly with it. We 
find the young man presented as the paragon of friendship, the 

^ The story of the relief of Jabesh (i Sam. ii) is ancient, and the sub- 
stance may well be taken for authentic history. In the received text are 
some interpolations, designed to harmonise its statements with the other 
document with which it is combined. Samuel was originally unknown to 
it, but has been introduced in the process of redaction. In the correct 
reading, it dates the relief of Jabesh about a month after Saul's first anointing. 
The enormous numbers of Saul's militia must be judged like similar data 
elsewhere. 

^ As David had a body-guard of only six hundred men, we may suspect 
the three thousand to be an exaggeration. 

* Whom Yahweh gave is the meaning of the name. Saul's piety is mani- 
fested in all the names he gave his sons. 



THE EARLY MONARCHY 11/ 

loving and generous prince who could rejoice that he was to be 
supplanted in the kingdom by his friend David. At his first in- 
troduction to us the shadow has not yel begun to fall over his 
life. He is the intrepid warrior, without whose impetuosity Saul 
might never have broken with the Philistines. It was Jonathan 
who struck the first blow for freedom. As crown prince he had 
command of the troops at Geba. The place is on the south side 
of a wadi running up from the Jordan valley. At this place the 
Philistine Resident was stationed, a constant provocation to the 
young soldier. Impatience getting the upper hand, Jonathan 
slew the agent of oppression with his own hand. The act of re- 
volt needed no interpreter, and the Philistines promptly moved 
into the hill country. Coming from the north (as would appear), 
they forced Saul to evacuate two of his posts — Bethel and Mich- 
mash. Geba, however, was protected by the ravine which ran 
between it and Michmash, and its garrison could not so easily 
be dispossessed. Saul's men deserted in numbers, and his force 
was reduced to six hundred men. With these he held Geba, 
but was unable to take the offensive, or even to check the devas- 
tation of the country. After the manner of Oriental (and also of 
Occidental) warfare, the Philistine bands harried the country. 
From the fixed camp at Michmash, where they could hold the 
Benjamites in check, they daily sent out parties of raiders to the 
north, east, and west. These, with settled purpose, looted, 
killed, and burned whatever belonged to Israel. 

A bold stroke by Jonathan brought light into the darkness 
which seemed settling upon Israel. From the camp at Geba he 
could look across the ravine and see what was doing at Michmash.^ 
There the advance post of the Philistines was stationed on the 
edge of the cliff overlooking the ravine. The young soldier 
could not help thinking what a fine thing it would be to give 
them a fright, and the thought became a resolve. 

As was appropriate to a prince and an officer, Jonathan had a 
squire or adjutant — armour-bearer is the Hebrew title — who 
fought by his side.' Such an officer naturally became the con- 

* It is acutely conjectured by Duff {Old Testament Theology, II, p. 223) 
that the name means Place of Chemosh. Chemosh was the god of Moab, and 
the name might have been given during the Moabite invasion from which 
deliverance was wrought by Ehud. 

* We have already met such an officer in the case of Abimelech, Judg. 9 ^. 



Il8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

fidential friend of his chief; so we are not surprised to find Jona- 
than confiding his plans to him. What he proposes is that they 
quietly make their way to the bottom of the ravine and then 
show themselves in the open. If the sentinels observe them and 
banter them to climb the slope they will take it as Yahweh's 
omen that they are to make the attempt. The squire is in no 
way behind his chief in ambition, and readily seconds the plan. 
The result is as Jonathan expected. The sentinels seeing the 
■young men below them, amuse themselves with watching the 
*' Hebrews coming out of their holes." Then they shout: 
■" Come up hither and we will show you.something. ' ' This is the 
'looked-for omen, and in the confidence that it is a sign from 
Yahweh, the two warriors scramble up the cliff. The men of the 
outpost are taken aback by the unexpected move. Uncertain 
whether there may not be a large force swarming up the slope, 
they hesitate, then turn to flee. The active Jonathan, ''swifter 
than an eagle," as he is described later,^ pursues, overtakes, 
beats down, and with the help of his adjutant soon puts some 
twenty men beyond the power of doing harm. 

The undisciplined armies of the East are easily thrown into a 
panic. The force of Philistines on this occasion was a miscella- 
neous body drawn together by the hope of plunder. Besides 
Philistines and Canaanites it contained many Hebrews, who were 
pressed into the service either as slaves or burden-bearers, or who 
had feigned zeal for their Philistine superiors. It is hardly sur- 
prising that the main camp was thrown into confusion by the 
sudden attack upon the outpost. The piety of the Israelites was 
sure that an earthquake was felt, and this they interpreted as the 
signal of Yahweh's coming to the aid of His people. This party 
in the camp was therefore ready to strike a blow for freedom, 
while the Philistines, uncertain whom to trust, turned their 
swords against friend and foe without discrimination. As Saul 
from the not distant Geba heard the thunder of the captains and 
the shouting, and looked to see what it meant, he saw, not the 
dreaded ranks ready to march, but a mob surging hither and 
yonder in aimless and ridiculous confusion. 

The pious king was not willing to move without some indica- 
tion of the will of God. The priest Ahitub was with the army, 
carrying the ephod by which the mind of Yahweh could be as- 
* In David's lament, 2 Sam. i ^^ 



THE EARLY MONARCHY I IQ 

certained.' First the troops were mustered, and the roll call 
showed the absence of Jonathan and his aid. Then the ephod 
was brought, and the ceremonies preparatory to the consultation 
of the oracle were gone through, or at least begun. Meanwhile 
the confusion in the camp of the enemy kept increasing. The 
circumstances seemed to indicate the will of Yahweh plainly 
enough. Without waiting for the special revelation therefore, 
Saul decided to seize the golden moment. Directing the priest 
to suspend the service, he marched at the head of his little band 
against the Philistines. The time was indeed opportune ; the 
Philistines were in utter confusion ; the Hebrews in the camp — 
slaves or hangers-on — had turned against their masters. The 
host was melting away; what held together was making its way 
westward toward the Philistine country. Saul and his men had 
nothing to do but to follow and slay. As the fleeing and pur- 
suing companies made their way over the country, Saul was con- 
tinually reinforced by those Israelites who had kept in hiding or 
had heretofore avoided taking sides in the war. The day was a 
day of victory for Israel. 

The vividness with which the narrative brings before us the 
conditions of ancient Palestinian warfare must be my excuse for 
reproducing it at such length. No other of the battles of Israel 
is so fully described for us, but many must have been fought in 
substantially the same manner. Nor is it the battle alone that 
throws light upon the condition of the people at this time. The 
sequel is at least equally interesting. Saul, as we have seen, left 
the consultation of the oracle incomplete. But, either to concili- 
ate the God whose oracle he was thus treating cavalierly, or else 
to secure His favour by a special example of self-denial, the king 
laid upon his soldiers the vow of abstinence. " Cursed be every 
one who shall eat food till evening, till I be avenged on my ene- 
mies. ' ' The solemn Amen of the people ratified the vow. Doubt- 
less by this vow the soldiers were kept from plundering and so de- 
laying or endangering the victory. But we can hardly suppose that 
this was Saul's main idea. His purpose was to impose a taboo, 
with the idea that this in itself was an act well pleasing to God.^ 

' The ephod has been discussed above in connexion with the story of 
Gideon. It had some relation with the sacred lot which we shall meet again. 

' Vows of abstinence are not unusual among the Arabs in going to war. 
cf. Procksch, Die Blutrache bei den Vorislamischen Arabern (1899), p. 5. 



I20 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

The effort did not result as had been anticipated. The people, 
exhausted by pursuing and fighting, and unrefreshed by food, 
were unable to do effective execution on their foes. Moreover, 
when the period of taboo was ended by the going down of the 
sun, the famished people flew upon the captured cattle, slew and 
ate. The care in disposing of the blood, which is enjoined in all 
religions, conspicuously in the religion of Israel, was found to be 
lacking. Saul was the first to regret this profane haste. He 
ordered an altar to be extemporised, and warned the people by 
heralds to bring to it the animals they had in hand, that their eat- 
ing might be in accordance with the customs of religion.^ 

The unfortunate results of the vow were not yet fully manifest. 
After the refreshment of the soldiers Saul proposed a night attack 
upon what was left of the Philistine force. The oracle was again 
appealed to, but no response could be had. The conclusion was 
easily drawn that some one had violated the taboo and that Yah- 
weh was angry. As a matter of fact the taboo had been violated ; 
Jonathan, who had not been present at its imposition, had eaten 
a little honey from an abandoned hive. When he was informed 
of the state of the case he ceased eating, though convinced that 
his father had been unwise in forcing the people to fight all day 
without food. Jonathan's transgression, unwitting though it 
was, brought guilt upon the people, and the anger of Yahweh 
was accounted for. That anger could be removed only by the 
death of the offender. To discover the guilty person, the sacred 
lot was again brought into play. Saul and Jonathan were in one 
group, the body of the soldiers in the other. The lot fell upon 

The fasting before a battle can hardly be said to be parallel to the present 
case, Judg. 20 ^^ i Sam. 7 ^ One is reminded, however, of the vow taken 
by the zealots not to eat or drink till they had killed the Apostle Paul, Acts 

23 12-15, 

^The story of the battle and taboo is found in i Sam. 13 ^-14^^. As we 
read it in the received text, it is disfigured by insertions from a later hand, 
which make it almost unintelligible. The chief of these is the account of the 
rejection of Saul, 13^*1^. This is a construction of religious bias: a later 
writer believed that Saul was rejected by Yahweh, the ground of the belief 
being that he did not succeed in establishing a dynasty. It required little 
logical power to conclude that the rejection was because of disobedience to 
Samuel, the chosen organ of divine revelation. Hence the paragraph in 
question. Less disturbing is the insertion 13 1^-22^ though it gives an exag- 
gerated view of the situation. The text of the chapters is corrupt in several 
places, as is pointed out in the commentaries. 



THE EARLY MONARCHY 121 

the royal party. The people expostulated against going on, fear- 
ful of losing either their king or the hero of the day. But Saul 
would not consent to anything less than the complete issue of the 
case; the lot was cast again and fell upon Jonathan.* The king 
would doubtless have offered himself as the victim had he been the 
one pointed out. Jonathan freely confessed his unwitting trans- 
gression and chivalrously offered to die. But the people could 
not reconcile themselves to the death of their hero. They tumul- 
tuously revolted against the carrying out of the sentence, and by 
offering a substitute redeemed the prince from the fate that 
hung over him.' Of course, the night was too far spent to think 
of further pursuit or battle. A further attempt against the Phil- 
istines seems not to have been made at this time. 

The Hebrew historians, like ancient historians in general, were 
interested in battles and the fortunes or misfortunes of their heroes. 
They do not tell us what we would most like to know. We may 
readily suppose that the decisive victory we have been consider- 
ing gave substantial relief from Philistine oppression — it is evi- 
dence to this effect that we hear no more of Philistine Residents 
in Benjamin. But what Saul did for the organisation of the 
kingdom is left untold. Probably social relations remained much 
as they had been, except that an appeal could be taken to the 
king as the judge of last resort. Saul's court and household were 
on the most modest scale, and we hear nothing of his laying 
taxes on his subjects. The extent of his kingdom is quite un- 
known. All that we are told of his acts is that he enlisted every 
valiant man in his service. This implies that his was a predatory 
kingdom, his own revenue and the support of his men coming 
from the raids in which he kept his troops busy. There is an 
intimation that David was at one time kept constantly on such 
service. The Philistines, the Canaanites, the Amalekites and 
other nomad tribes would furnish objects enough for such excur- 

*The passage, i Sam. 14 '^^^ j^ tj^e form in which the Greek translat- 
ors read it, gives us the best account of the sacred lot (the urim and thummim) 
which we have anywhere in the Old Testament. It does not say in so many 
words that the ephod is the receptacle for the oracular stones, but that is the 
natural conclusion. A discussion of the Biblical material with reference 
to Babylonian analogies is given by W. Muss-Arnolt, "The Urim and 
Thummim," in the Amer. Journal of Semitic Languages {\(^oo\ pp. 193-224. 

' That it was a human substitute is not expressly stated in the text, but 
all the probabilities point toward such an one. 



122 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

sions. Our present narrative adds to these the Moabites, the 
Ammonites, and the Syrians, and there is no improbabihty in 
Saul's leading forays into the regions occupied by these peoples. 
In the oldest document we hear no more of pitched battles till 
we come to the end of Saul's life. The interest of our inform- 
ants turns to a new hero. David, a Bethlehemite and a member 
of the tribe of Judah, is the man who, from his introduction to 
the court of Saul, becomes the central figure of the story. It is 
doubtful whether his tribe was included in the kingdom of Saul, 
though the relations between Judah and the rest of Israel were 
friendly. The account of David's coming to court reveals the 
shadow which was already overhanging the house of Saul. The 
abnormal nervous constitution of the king, which had shown 
itself in unusual religious exaltation, now manifested itself in 
another way. The Spirit of Yahweh began to trouble him with 
fits of depression, sometimes rising to acute mania, in which, as 
one beside himself, he raved in his tent. The symptoms which 
in his religious exaltation were interpreted as indicating the favour 
of Yahweh now gave rise to anxiety, as though his God had 
turned against him. His peace of mind was gone, and his irre- 
sponsible moods might easily become dangerous to those about 
him. The only thing that his officers could think of as likely 
to give relief was music, and they therefore advised the employ- 
ment of a court musician. One of them was ready to recom- 
mend his friend David, who #as already a soldier of repute, a 
man of affairs and of good presetice, as well as a skilful player on 
the harp. He was sent for, and became to court with a modest 
gift sent by his father to the king.* His musical talent gave 
satisfaction. Whenever the troublesome Spirit came upon Saul 
in fits which threatened to suffocate him, then '^ David would 
take the lyre and play, and Saul would breathe freely and be 
well."' Nor was it the young man's music alone that com- 
mended him. The personal qualities of which his friend had 

^ It was not good form to approach the king without bringing a present, 
which was generally in kind. Jesse sent ten loaves of bread, a kid, and a 
skin of wine. 

2 I Sam. 1 6 2'^. The verse adds and the spirit of evil would depart from 
him. The phrase spirit of evil conveys a wrong impression to us. The 
passage makes it abundantly clear that the spirit was the Spirit of Yahweh, 
but the author calls it a spirit of evil because it was sent to inflict evil on 
Saul. 



THE EARLY MONARCHY 123 

boasted proved to be real, and they endeared him to his king. 
Saul loved him, we are told, and made him his adjutant, thus 
giving him a place where he might always be near his person. 
The judgment of Saul was shared by the people at large, with 
whom David became a favourite. 

The mind of princes is proverbially fickle, and in the morbid 
state in which Saul was, we can hardly wonder that his love 
soon gave place to jealousy. The consciousness that his health 
was undermined would only increase his sensitiveness, and the 
sensitiveness would not long lack occasion. What finally affected 
him we can no longer make out — the story of Goliath is a late 
invention. The earliest of our sources relates how on the return 
of the army from one of their forays, the women danced out to 
meet the victors singing the couplet : 

" Saul slew his thousands, 
And David his ten thousands." 

But the account is not easy to credit. The couplet is probably 
one current at a later time, to express the comparative merits of 
the two kings. Native good sense would keep the people from 
such a breach of etiquette as they would commit by singing such 
a song in Saul's presence. Even supposing that David's youth 
gave him especial advantages in the eyes of the singers, they 
must have known that extravagant praise would bring the hero 
into an equivocal position. Nor would David's own modesty 
have permitted this preference of himself to his prince. 

We are compelled to confess our ignorance of any particular 
occasion for jealousy ; the jealousy itself was a serious fact. In 
one of the insane fits which came upon the king, he attempted 
his servant's life — hurling the javelin at him as he played. This 
failing (and perhaps being excused as a deed done under an in- 
sane impulse), the king removed David from close attendance 
upon his person, and gave him a command in the field. His hope 
was that the accidents of war would take his rival out of the way. 
But David throve upon the accidents of war; they served only 
to bring out his prowess and his ability as a commander. The 
devotion of the people became more marked than ever. 

The element of romance was infused into the situation by 
Saul's daughter Michal, whose heart was captivated by the youth- 
ful hero. Her affection could not be concealed from those about 



124 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

her, and, coming to the ears of the king, it suggested a way to 
get rid of the now hated officer. The courtiers were directed to 
sound David on the question of becoming the king's son-in-law. 
When David, with modesty and good sense, explains that he can- 
not pay the price which the king would have the right to expect 
for his daughter, he is told that the king will take his pay in the 
lives of his enemies. One hundred of these, vouched for in a way 
that will satisfy the king, is all the dowry that is asked. ^ The 
secret hope of the bargainer is, that the aspirant will pay with 
his own life for the one hundred which he plans to take. The 
event brought disappointment ; the price was paid at the time 
stipulated, and the king had no excuse for withholding his 
daughter. 

But now the hostility breaks out violently and openly. The 
king, maddened by his failure, sends to the house where David 
has just taken possession of his bride. Not able to wait until morn- 
ing to cool his rage, he commands his satellites to violate the pri- 
vacy of the home — a gross outrage, according to Oriental ideas as 
well as our own. They are to bring David to him, so that he may 
personally take vengeance. But the king's temper had not escaped 
the observation of his daughter. She is in no mind to be mocked 
with a husband, and therefore urges David to escape while it is 
yet time. With her own hand she lets him down from an unob- 
served window, and he disappears in the darkness. To gain time 
for him, she uses the Teraphim — the household god which at this 
period stood at every Israelite hearth.^ This we must suppose to 
be a rude image in human form. Wrapping this effigy in a gar- 
ment, as the Oriental wraps himself when he sleeps, she places it in 
David's bed. She then meets the messengers who demand her 
husband, and tells them he is ill. As the king will brook no de- 

^ The fact already noted, that the Philistines were the only uncircumcised 
people of Palestine, accounts for the extraordinary nature of the vouchers 
stipulated. 

That a father expected to be paid for his daughters, is evident from the 
case of Laban, as well as from the regulations of the Book of the Covenant 
(Ex. 21 "~", 22^^). On Arabic analogies, cf. Wellhausen, "Die Ehe bei 
den Arabern " in the Nachrichten der Gdtting. Gesellsch. der Wissenschaften 
(1893) p. 433 flf. 

^ The Teraphim appear in the history of Jacob, where they are mildly dis- 
approved. So late as Hosea they seem to be associated with the altar of 
Yahweh, Hos. 3*, cf. also Judg. 17 ^ 18 ^^ff. 



THE EARLY MONARCHY 12$ 

lay, the Stratagem avails little. Michal is compelled to prevari- 
cate in order to save her own life from her angry father/ 

With this incident, David becomes the leading character of the 
story. We hear little more of Saul, except that his pursuit of his 
rival becomes a monomania. The most melancholy incident of 
his career — until the suprem.e struggle in which he loses his life — 
is the massacre of the priests of Nob. The town thus named was 
not far from Gibeah, and was a religious centre. All members of 
the clan that possessed it seem to have had priestly qualifications. 
Their chief is identified, on somewhat precarious grounds, with 
a grandson of Eli. When David was on his flight from Saul, he 
received aid and comfort from this priest. The report was 
brought to Saul at the time when he was irritated to the pitch of 
insanity by David's escape. Certainly the kindness of the priest 
looked like more than ordinary friendship. Suspecting conspir- 
acy, the king summoned all the adult males of the clan — eighty- 
five men in number. Without listening to their defence, he had 
them all put to death. The account which has come down to us 
affirms that he also sacked the town, and put the whole popula- 
tion to the sword, without sparing age or sex.^ This outbreak of 

^ The chapters of i Samuel which relate the fortunes of David in this pe- 
riod present complicated problems, some of which still await solution. The 
repeated flights and escapes of David show that more than two accounts 
have been combined. In the story of Goliath, the fact of interpolation is 
made clear by the testimony of the Greek version. The story in any form 
is legendary — the representation of Saul's abject terror, of David's lack of 
experience, of Saul's ignorance of the lad, of Jonathan's sudden friendship, 
speak too loudly to be misunderstood. 

I have passed by the second account of Saul's rejection (i Sam. 15) as 
also thoroughly unhistorical. But I do not mean to affirm that there is no 
real incident at the basis of the story. The sacrifice of Agag "before Yah- 
weh " at Gilgal is quite comprehensible as the fulfilment of a vow made on 
going into battle — the parallel case of Jephthah has already been consid- 
ered ; cf. Schwally, Kriegsaltertiiiner, I, p. 34. 

^The story of the massacre, i Sam. 22 ^"^^' bears all the marks of historic- 
ity. The section introductory to it which relates David's interview with 
the priest, may have been influenced by the author's desire to set David in 
a favourable light. The giving of the consecrated bread is, to his mind, a 
divine indication that David is already a consecrated person — the king bore 
that character as we have seen. It may be doubted whether the priest was 
as innocent as the narrative would make him out. 

For historical purposes, we are obliged to pass by the account of David's 
flight to Samuel at Ramah (19^^"^*), and also the elaborate intercession of 
Jonathan in chapter 20. 



126 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

rage is only too comprehensible. But it does not seem seriously 
to have weakened the king's hold upon his people. 

Saul maintained himself against external and internal foes for 
some years. His early chronicler affirms that he made war 
against Moab, Ammon, Edom, the kings of Zoba and the Philis- 
tines, and that wherever he turned he was victorious} Such an 
impression could not have been made had the king's life been 
mainly taken up with fits of madness and fruitless expeditions 
after a runaway servant. Perhaps we may conclude something 
from the final effort of the Philistines. They found it impossible 
to invade the country of Benjamin directly, because Saul too 
vigilantly guarded all the approaches. Hence their march to the 
Great Plain, where they could use their chariots. The account 
which has come down to us makes a digression to tell of the for- 
tunes of David. He and his men had been ordered by Achish, 
in whose service they were, to march with the Philistine forces. 
The dilemma in which he was placed — he must either fight against 
his kinsmen or betray the cause in which he was enlisted — was 
removed by the suspicions of the Philistine generals. Doubtless 
they remembered the experience at Michmash, when their slaves 
and auxiliaries turned against them. 

Later story threw over the last days of Saul's life the shadow 
of his coming doom. In this narrative a necromancer is made to 
bring back Samuel from the realm of shades to pronounce again 
the sentence of rejection. The interview is the final scene in 
the life of a rebel against God, delivered over to despair by the 
shade of the prophet whom he has disobeyed. The chapter is of 
the utmost value as showing popular ideas concerning intercourse 
with the dead. But its pitiless consistency in following a theo- 
logical idea deprives it of all value for the history of Saul.^ 

The Philistines had mustered all the force they could command. 
with the determination to crush out the independence of Israel. 
There was nothing left for Saul except to lead a folorn hope. 

1 1 Sam. 14 *^ The verse is the concluding panegyric of an ancient life 
of Saul. For Edom in this passage, however, we should probably read 
Aram. Edom was too remote to be reached by Saul. 

2 To the older commentators the story presented difficulties of the gravest 
sort, for that the author believed in the actual raising of Samuel's shade 
must be obvious. The difficulties disappear when we discover that the chap- 
ter is only the dramatic embodiment of an idea. It is poetic consistency to 
make Samuel dead repeat the rejection pronounced by Samuel living. 



THE EARLY MONARCHY 12/ 

He died fighting for the cause to which he had given so large a 
part of his life. Two accounts of his death have come down to 
us. One asserts that he saw his defeat and the death of his sons, 
and that he was himself wounded. In these desperate circum- 
stances he urged his armour-bearer to despatch him/ lest he fall 
alive into the hands of the enemy. When this officer refused to 
obey the order he threw himself upon his own sword. The other 
account makes an Amalekite camp follower give him the finishing 
stroke. It may be doubted whether either is accurate. All we 
can assert with confidence is that Saul and the able-bodied men 
of his house died on the field of honour. 

For the time the cause seemed lost ; but we may well believe 
that its hero had not lived in vain. He marked out the path in 
which his greater successor was to follow. Later times judged 
him too severely, making success the test of the divine favour. 
The light we have on his career is uncertain and perplexing, part- 
ly because it was outshone by the briUiancy of David's history, 
partly because Saul himself was a perplexing character. His 
whole-hearted devotion to the unity and independence of Israel, 
and his sincere piety, were offset by less admirable qualities. 
The jealousy that tormented him is the natural failing of a self- 
made man. The ruthlessness of his treatment of Nob shows a 
temptation to which almost every absolute ruler at some time 
gives way. Even his zeal for Israel was not always a zeal accord- 
ing to knowledge, for, contrary to right and the common con- 
science, he endeavoured to exterminate the Gibeonites. 

These Canaanites were protected by a solemn league and cove- 
nant. Saul, in his zeal for Israel, thought the covenant could be 
disregarded, and took steps to wipe out the foreigners. How far 
he went, or what checked him, we do not know. A famine in 
the time of David was interpreted as a vindication of the rights 
of the allies — Yahweh was not unmindful of the oath to which he 
was made a party. The blood brought by Saul upon his house 
was therefore purged by the hanging up of his sons before Yah- 
weh in Gibeon. We are not to infer that the conscience of Saul 
was altogether seared. His obtuseness was the obtuseness of the 
times in which he lived. 

The able-bodied men of Saul's family perished with him in 

* Cf. the case of Abimelech already described, and the parallel instance of 
a Babylonian king, Keilinsch. Bibliothek, II, p. 137. 



128 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

the battle of Gilboa. Abner, Saul's general, seems to have 
found discretion the better part of valour. Himself escaping, he 
carried Ishbaal — Saul's surviving son, a weakhng in body and 
mind — across the Jordan. Here, at the ancient Israelite town of 
Mahanaim, he was able to set up the semblance of a kingdom, 
with Ishbaal as its head. The Philistines were masters of the 
country between the Jordan and the sea, but they seem to have 
allowed Ishbaal some sort of jurisdiction on payment of tribute. 
David was rising into prominence in the south, but he was to 
appearance wholly devoted to the Philistine interest. It could 
only give pleasure to the overlords to see the two subject king- 
doms keep each other in check, and exhaust their strength by 
making war on each other. 

Before turning to David we may notice with sympathy the 
men of Jabesh Gilead. After the battle of Gilboa, the victors 
sent the armour of Saul to their chief temple as a trophy. His 
body they hung up in derision on the walls of Beth-shan. The 
men of Jabesh were not unmindful of their debt to their deliver- 
er. In a night expedition they rescued the bones of Saul from 
the ignominious exposure, brought them to their own town, and 
buried them under a conspicuous tree, with appropriate expres- 
sions of grief. Not all republics are ungrateful. 



CHAPTER VIII 

DAVID 

We have already met the son of Jesse at the court of Saul, 
whither he came as court musician. That a celebrated warrior 
may also be a skilled musician is proved by many examples in 
history. Tradition has delighted to embellish the career of this 
warrior-minstrel, so that it is difficult for us to discover the 
actual course of his life. If we content ourselves w^ith selecting 
what seems most authentic in the story that has come down to 
us, we shall have a result something as follows : 

The young officer was placed by Saul first in a confidential 
position where he became acquainted with the life of the court. 
He was then given a post of danger where he was schooled in the 
art of war. The growing jealousy of the king taught him cir- 
cumspection. When he was at last compelled to flee the court 
and to depend on himself, he was able to cope with adversity, to 
find resources in himself, and to maintain his influence over the 
turbulent spirits which came to share his outlawry. The nucleus 
of the band of which he soon became the head was formed by his 
own kinsmen. In an unsettled state of society such as then pre- 
vailed, a masterful spirit easily becomes the head of a band like- 
minded with himself.^ Jephthah is a case in point. The king- 
dom of Damascus was founded later by such a freebooter. 

The Wilderness of Judah — the country along the western shore 
of the Dead Sea — is adapted to furnish refuge to such bands. 
Descending upon the cultivated country in a sudden raid, the 
troop disappears in the trackless waste, only to make a new 
attack in an unexpected quarter. To the south the wilderness 
of Kadesh offers additional security. Edom and Amalek were 
hereditary enemies of David, and the numerous Bedawin clans, 
often hostile to each other, were just strong enough to make the 

* Arabic history shows numerous similar cases, of which one is the famous 
poet Imru'1-Kais, cited by Procksch, Blutrache, p. 32. 

I2q 



I30 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

work of plunder interesting. Blackmail has always been re- 
garded as legitimate in border warfare, and that David did not 
hesitate to levy it is shown by the anecdote of Nabal. This man 
was one of the great sheep-masters of Southern Palestine, a Caleb- 
ite by race, his tribe not yet reckoned a part of Judah. His 
home was Carmel, in a rolling country, part of which is cultiva- 
ble, the rest furnishes excellent pasture.' 

The time of sheep-shearing is a time of feasting and rejoicing. 
The Bedawy Sheikh still expects generous hospitahty, or a gift 
from the shepherd at this season. David, therefore, sent an em- 
bassy to Nabal asking for Baksheesh. The ground given was 
first, that his band had respected Nabal's rights, not exercising 
the right of the strongest ; secondly, they had protected Nabal's 
property from other wandering bands which might have been 
troublesome. What David claimed was in fact protection money, 
only he asked it in kind instead of in coin. But Nabal, strong 
in the consciousness of possession, turned the messengers away 
with a surly reply: '* Who is David ? Who is the son of Jesse? 
There are many slaves in these days who run away from their 
masters. And I must take my bread and my wine and the flesh 
which I have killed for my shearers, and give them to men of 
whom I know nothing ! ' ' The taunt and the refusal aroused 
David's anger, and hastily arming a part of his force he was on 
the point of quenching his rage in the blood of the man who had 
insulted him. 

The good sense with which Nabal's wife met the crisis, and 
the skill with which she dissuaded David from staining his con- 
science with blood, may be read in the narrative. To us they 
are of less importance than the glimpse we get into the life of the 
freebooter. Such a band as David's — tradition makes it to have 
reached six hundred men — must have been driven to all sorts of 
shifts to keep alive. Many a sheep-master of the region must 
have been taxed to supply their wants. In many cases the towns 
must have purchased David's help against the Amalekite or his 
kindred. No disgrace attached to the captain who entered into 
such an arrangement, or who insisted upon it. He was giving 
as well as receiving a favour, and we know that when David ob- 

* Carmel, Maon, and Ziph, which are mentioned in this part of David's 
history, are all identified in the region southeast of Hebron ; compare G. 
A. Smith's description. Historical Geography, p. 306 note. 



DAVID 131 

tained booty he was free-handed with it, making presents in his 
turn to the towns which had dealt generously with him. 

It is difficult to say how much Saul added to the perplexity of 
the situation. Tradition makes the Ziphites so anxious to be 
rid of David that they invited Saul to come against him, them- 
selves acting as spies for the army. Two separate accounts are 
preserved to us illustrating David's magnanimity toward his 
enemy. The more original seems to be the one which makes 
David, when Saul is on his track, steal into the king's camp at 
night accompanied by a single follower. The guards are all 
asleep ; the defenceless king lies at their feet ; Abishai is eager 
to pin him to the earth with a single thrust of the spear. But 
David takes seriously the divinity that doth hedge a king. Saul 
is to him "the Anointed of Yahweh," a consecrated person 
whom to harm would be sacrilege. Hence he refuses the per- 
mission desired by his attendant, and contents himself with tak- 
ing objects enough to show that he has been in the camp. The 
succeeding revulsion of feeling on the part of Saul is just what we 
might expect ; and on the other hand it is not strange that David 
should distrust his enemy's good-will and decline to put himself 
in his power. The account possesses verisimilitude, therefore, 
and it presents David in the light in which he was viewed by his 
contemporaries.^ 

Tired of the precarious struggle in the wilderness, David at 
length resolved on the only course open to him. He could 
enlist under the banner of a more powerful chief, one with re- 
sources enough to insure him support, and with territory enough 
to give him employment. Such a chief he found in Achish, 
king of Gath. The location of Gath is as yet unknown to us, 
but we gather that its territory was exposed to the raids of the 
Bedawin, and that only a soldier who had experience in border 
warfare could hold them in check. Achish at first planned to 
make David captain of his body-guard, and to keep him at the 
capital. But the arrangement proved impracticable. The Is- 
raelites of David's command would hardly be conciliatory to 
the Philistines among whom they were settled. David himself 

^ The account is contained in i Sam. 26. The parallel, chapter 24, is a 
much less probable narrative. The difficulty in receiving either as strictly 
historical arises from the improbability of Saul's being so far away from his 
own domain in chase of a fugitive band which was doing him no harm. 



132 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

had fought against Philistines in the old days, and there were 
probably blood feuds to be settled. Furthermore, it was not to 
David's taste to be always under the king's eye. He had been 
his own master too long to become a courtier again. Moved by 
these considerations, he proposed that he should receive one of 
the outlying places — town and fortress — where he could more 
easily reach the border ruffians. 

In this way he became Emir of Ziklag, a town in the edge of 
the desert, and here his men, with wives and children, made their 
abode. To a late date the kings of Judah traced their title to 
the town to the gift of Achish, and we may therefore suppose the 
place to have been an enclave in Phihstine territory. Here David 
acted the part of a robber chief. He and his men were constantly 
raiding the neighbouring nomads, carrying off their cattle, and 
putting the people to the sword. Achish received part of the 
booty, and heard with pleasure that David was carrying the war 
into the borders of Judah and its affiliated clans.^ The estrange- 
ment between David and his own people thus seemed to be 
complete, and his devotion to his new master was regarded as es- 
tablished. So great was the king's confidence, that, as we have 
seen, he called David to follow him in the great Philistine cam- 
paign against northern Israel. The embarrassing situation was 
happily reheved by the suspicion of the Philistine leaders. 

Two can play at the game of war, and fortune cannot be 
expected always to favour the same side. The Amalekites had 
reason to seek revenge.^ Discovering the unprotected state of 
Ziklag when David and his men were called to the war, they at- 
tacked the town and gained possession of it. The houses were 
burned, and everything of value was carried off, including the 
women and children, whom the captors no doubt expected to 

1 David himself is represented (i Sam. 27 ^®) as saying that he had raided 
the Negeb of Judah, the Negeb of the Jerachmeelites, and the Negeb of the 
Kenites. The Kenites are known to have been allies of Israel from the 
time of Moses. Jerachmeel was later absorbed in Judah. Both clans are 
named among those who received presents from David, i Sam. 30 ^^"^^ The 
proper home of Judah seems to have been Bethlehem, while Hebron was 
the seat of Caleb. Only by bearing these facts in mind do we get a correct 
idea Of the disintegration of the country. 

2 This desert clan had been in feud with Israel ever since the exodus. 
Their appearance in this narrative is proof enough that they had not been 
exterminated by Saul, as is affirmed by i Sam. 15. 



DAVID 133 

sell in the Egyptian market as slaves. The prompt pursuit by- 
David, the good fortune that threw into his hands a slave-boy 
able to guide him to the camp of the plunderers, the successful 
attack — all are graphically set forth in the Biblical narrative. A 
good impression of David's executive ability is given by the 
promptness of his pursuit, and by the decision with which he 
settled the quarrel among his men about the booty. His own 
share of the spoil he used to win the hearts of the Sheikhs in Ju- 
dah and the allied clans — reminding us of Mohammed's poUcy 
after the battle of Honein.^ 

The imagination of later times was pleased to bring David 
news of the death of Saul by the mouth of an Amalekite, whose 
hands also bore the royal crown and bracelet. The obvious im- 
possibility of his story compels us to reject it. Probably no one 
at this time thought of David as Saul's successor. In his own 
mind there may have been hope of something of the kind. The 
duty at hand was to strengthen himself in his own region of Ju- 
dah. Here, the advantages of having a strong man as their ally 
had been brought home to the Sheikhs by David's presents, as 
well as by his protection. The career of Saul had familiarised 
the people with the idea of a monarchy. No opposition on the 
part of the Philistines was to be feared, for David was their trib- 
utary, and their power had just been firmly established by the 
victory at Gilboa. The more complete organisation of Judah 
would (as it seemed to them) put more power into their hands. 
They could hardly imagine David succeeding where Saul had 
failed. We can understand their looking on with indifference, if 
not with encouragement, while he negotiated with the clans. 

The most important city in the region was Hebron, the capi- 
tal of Caleb, or possibly of an alliance of clans afterward merged 
in Judah. Hither came David with his trusty soldiers, and was 
recognised as king by the Sheikhs.^ No doubt he secured the 

* The reader may supplement the account of this part of David's life by 
such other sections of the Biblical text as commend themselves to his judg- 
ment. With the adventures in the Wilderness of Judah, and the migration 
to Gath, there seems to be no room for those at the stronghold of Adullam, 
I Sam. 22 ^' ^, 23. We must suppose these displaced in the compilation. 

' It is perhaps not too bold to see in the name of the city {Confederacy') a 
reminiscence of its composite population. The name Kirjath-arba {City of 
Four), might be traced to the same origin ; but this name occurs only in 
very late documents, and any argument from it is precarious. 



134 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

citadel, or built one, where his retainers could maintain him, 
should the popular sentiment undergo a change. From Hebron 
he could easily extend his sway over the Edomite clans on the 
south and over Judah, which lay between him and Jerusalem. If 
he was himself a Judahite, his own clan would in fact chng to him 
among the first. The whole region had suffered the ills of tribal 
society where every clan is against every other. The king's 
peace is to such a people more than an empty name. The whole 
period on which we look back — from the El Amarna time down 
— had been conspicuously lacking in peace ; there was no king 
in Israel, and every man did that which was right in his own 
eyes. A king promised a stable government. If he or his body- 
guard were guilty of occasional acts of oppression, the mass of 
the people would yet be better off than where they had no pro- 
tector. The king must keep external invasion from the boun- 
daries, and he must repress private warfare within his domain. 
Some such thoughts as these passed through the minds of the 
burghers of Hebron as they welcomed David and anointed him 
at their sanctuary. King of Caleb and Judah was what he as- 
pired to be. But he aspired to a nominal headship over other 
parts of Israel — so we conclude from his message of gratitude to 
the men of Jabesh Gilead. It would be something for them, in 
their disorganised condition to feel that there was the tie of 
blood between them and the able and energetic king of Hebron. 
Lack of a chronology in our sources embarrasses us in attempt- 
ing to follow the history at this point. Did David proceed at 
once to bring Benjamin under his rule? Against this^ may be 
urged the position of Jerusalem, as yet unsubdued, and the dif- 
ficulty which David would experience in carrying on a war so 
far from his base of supplies. Obtuse as the Philistines were — or 
self-confident if one chooses — they would surely take the alarm 
by the time David had consolidated his power over the country 
south of Jerusalem. We may conjecture, then, that the Philistines 
did take the alarm before the conquest of Jerusalem or of Benja- 
min. They made Bethlehem their objective point in one cam- 
paign as we know. At another time they attacked Keilah, a 

^ Which seems to be the theory of the Biblical writer, 2 Sam. 2-4, where, 
following immediately on the anointing at Hebron, we find the war with 
Abner. Compare the article of S. A. Cook: "Notes on the Composition 
of Second Samuel," in the Am. Jour. Sent. Lang., XVI., pp. 145-177. 



DAVID 135 

border town of Judah. David was obliged to take refuge in the 
fortress of Adullam. From this stronghold he was able to hang 
upon the flanks of the enemy and finally to compel them to re- 
treat. The rehef of Keilah was one of his feats. The killing of 
Goliath in a duel by one of his followers probably belongs in 
the same connexion.^ Other exploits may belong with this — 
the most pleasing is the one where three of David's men break 
through the lines of the Philistines to bring him a drink of water 
from Bethlehem.^ 

By what finesse David lulled his foes into security till he could 
strike the decisive blow we are not told. The time came when 
he could strike such a blow. In fact, two capital engagements 
are recorded, one at Baal Perazim, w^here the Philistine idols, 
which they had brought into the battle with them, fell into the 
hands of Israel; the other at Bekaim, where an omen of Yahweh's 
presence was taken from the ' ' sound of marching in the tops of 
the Balsams" — doubtless sacred trees in which the God was 
thought to reside. The result of the campaign seems to have 
been dehverance from the Philistine overlordship.^ 

1 In Arab warfare it is very common for a warrior to advance from the 
ranks and challenge anyone from the opposing army to meet him in single 
combat. The early history of Islam furnishes several instances. 

2 The reason for putting these exploits here is that Adullam must have 
been David's headquarters in his Philistine war. The duel with Goliath 
(which in the form in which it has come down to us in i Sam. is legendary 
— the earliest account is 2 Sam. 21 ^^) is located in the immediate vicinity of 
Adullam — the valley of Elah, i Sam. 17 2. Keilah was in the same region. 

' Our text puts the break with the Philistines after the capture of Jerusa- 
lem. But it is incomprehensible that David should leave his fortress at 
Jerusalem to go down to Adullam. The account of the capture of Jerusalem 
obviously disturbs the connexion of the passage in which it is now found. 
The valley of Rephaim is perhaps named from the gigantic Philistines (sons 
of the raphd) who were overcome there. The indication of 2 Sam. 23 ^*, 
is that it was between Adullam and Bethlehem, and nearer the former place. 
The current identification with the plain that stretches southwestward from 
Jerusalem can hardly be correct. Oracles from sacred trees are well known 
in other religions. The rustling of the sacred oak at Dodona was regarded 
as the voice of Zeus; Frazer, The Golden Boiigh"^, III, p. 346; Evans, 
"Tree and Pillar Cult," in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXI, p. 106. 
Semitic analogies are given by W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 
126, 169, 178. The latter author finds such trees in Gen. 12 ^ Judg. 9^'^, cf. 
Deut. 1 1*®. Egyptian analogies are also found, Wiedemann, Religion of the 
Ancient Egyptians, p. 155. 



136 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

The Philistine campaign or campaigns probably opened the 
king's eyes to the advantages of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. 
The settlement at this location must have been one of the earliest 
in Southern Palestine, for it is a stronghold by nature. Two 
rocky ridges with a shallow valley between them were on three 
sides so precipitous that they scarcely needed the art of man to 
make them impregnable. A living fountain at the base of the 
eastern ridge fixed the location of the first houses. As time went 
on the inhabitants added to their natural fortifications a wall, 
which the Israelites had not been able at any time to scale. So 
great was the confidence of the people in the place, that even 
against David's veterans they manned the wall with their lame 
and blind, believing these to be sufficient defenders. Whether 
there may not have been some Israelites settled as clients in the 
lower town before the time of David is a question easier to raise 
than to answer. The fact that, though captured by Judah, the 
city was always counted to Benjamin might argue for the affirma- 
tive.^ 

The over-confidence of the garrison was its ruin. David's 
seasoned soldiers took the place by storm. His clemency is seen 
in the fact that Araunah, a Jebusite, was in peaceable possession 
of his landed property at a later time. Very possibly David did 
not at once take up his residence in the newly conquered city. 
It would be of use to him as a frontier fortress, and then as a 
basis from which to undertake the conquest of Benjamin, while 
he retained his residence at Hebron.^ 

As we have seen, Ishbaal, a son of Saul, had been proclaimed 
king by Abner, his cousin, the commander of Saul's army. Ab- 
ner seems to have been a man of energy and ability. What ar- 
rangement he made with the Phihstines we do not know, but 
some shadow of power must have been left to Ishbaal, even over 
Benjamin. To avoid the humiliation of witnessing Phihstine tax- 
gatherers or garrisons in his court, we can hardly wonder that 

* The name Jebus seems to be an erroneous deduction from the clan name 
of the inhabitants — the Jebusites. The name Jerusalem is older than the Is- 
raelite invasion. 

"^ The literature on the topography and history of Jerusalem is enormous. 
The articles in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible and in the Encyclopcedia 
Biblica may be consulted. There seems to be substantial unanimity in the 
view that the original city of the Jebusites and of David was on the eastern ridge. 



DAVID 137 

IshbaaP preferred to fix his capital across the Jordan, where a loyal 
Israelite population was still found. Of course, he claimed juris- 
diction over all that had belonged to his father. The Hebrew 
writer enumerates Gilead, Asher, Jezreel, Ephraim, and Ben- 
jamin as making up his kingdom. It is difficult to suppose that 
his power was more than nominal over Asher and Jezreel. 

Whatever piety David may have felt toward Saul, he had no scru- 
ples about making war upon his successor.^ The success against the 
Philistines and the possession of Jerusalem stimulated his ambi- 
tion to unite all Israel in a single kingdom, of which he should 
be the head. The plan was statesmanlike, even if moved by per- 
sonal ambition. The union of Israel was essential if the people 
were to have a future, and true union could come only in a mon- 
archy. Ishbaal was not man enough either to unite the people in 
loyalty to himself or to throw off the Philistine yoke. David 
was in the full consciousness of his own powers, ambitious to ex- 
ercise those powers against the enemies of Yahweh. The first 
thing was to consolidate the tribes. Ishbaal stood in the way. 
Saul had been respected as king by the grace of God, but a king 
by the grace of Abner had no such claims. 

The offensive was taken by David, as we may judge on finding 
the only battle recorded for us taking place on Benjamite ground, 
near Gibeon. The force employed on David's side was the band 
of seasoned soldiers which had accompanied him in his exile and 
now had become his standing army. They were under command 
of Joab, David's nephew, whose courage at the taking of Jerusa- 
lem had given him promotion to the generalship of the army. 
We must judge the foray into Benjamin like an Arab Emir's 
raid upon his neighbours — he can thereby keep his troops busy, 
secure booty, perhaps harry another clan intf) asking his alliance. 
The defence in this case was in the hands of Abner, who is rep- 
resented as having the servants of Ishbaal under his command. 
The phrase would imply enlisted soldiers. But they could hardly 
have been the veterans of Saul's army, for these had perished 
with their master at Gilboa. 

^ I assume that Ishbaal was the original form of the name, which has been 
corrupted by the scribes to Ishbosheth {Man of Shatne). Other theories 
have been advanced, but seem precarious. 

' It is perhaps significant that in speaking of the death of Ishbaal, Davi4 
does not use the title Anointed of Yahweh. 



138 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

As the account has come down to us ^ the two parties are seen 
at the great reservoir near Gibeon. As they face each other 
Abner proposes that the matter be settled by a tournament of a 
few picked men — duels before the main engagement are not un- 
common in oriental warfare, as we have already noted. Joab 
consents, twelve men are chosen on each side, and the two com- 
panies meet in sight of the armies. The result is indecisive — the 
champions fall dead together, with no survivor to claim the 
victory on either side.^ A general engagement follows, in which 
Abner and his men are put to flight. The only incident which 
is preserved to us is the death of Asahel at the hand of Abner. 
Though done in self-defence and in open battle, this becomes a 
reason for blood-revenge on the part of Joab, Asahel' s brother. 
How the revenge is taken we learn later. For the present we are 
allowed to infer that Abner and his party would have been com- 
pletely exterminated had not the leader called for quarter. His 
plea is based on the unity of blood in Israel and Judah. The 
appeal is heeded by Joab, who calls off his men and returns to 
Hebron. 

We must suppose that the battle is only one out of a number 
that were fought before the final surrender of Israel to David. 
That the process extended over a considerable time, is directly 
stated by the historian, who adds that the house of Saul grew 
weaker and weaker, while David was growing stronger and 
stronger. Nothing succeeds like success, and we cannot wonder 
that the conviction made its way in Israel that David was the man 
for the hour. The course of events was hastened by a quarrel be- 
tween Ishbaal and his supporter. The woman in the case was a 
concubine of Saul, named Rizpah. According to ancient Semit- 
ic custom, a man's wives are a part of his estate, and go to his 
heirs on his death. ^ Abner took possession of Rizpah in defiance 
of the right of Ishbaal. The act could be interpreted only as a 
trespass; it was therefore an open declaration that the Major 
Domo knew himself to be strong enough to disregard common 

* It is possible that two events have become confused by the tradition, for 
the narrative as it stands does not read smoothly. 

2 The Roman legend of the Horatii and Curiatii is compared with this by 
Winckler, Gesch. Israels, II, p. 194 f. 

•'*The evidence is given by W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage, pp. 
86-91. 



DAVID 139 

opinion and the claim of his master. Weak men are proverbi- 
ally jealous of prerogative, and least willing to recognise the fact 
of their own weakness. Ishbaal called Abner to account, but 
the only reply he got was a taunt, and a declaration of re- 
volt. To this he had nothing to reply. The fact seems to be 
that Abner was getting tired of a losing struggle. He was seek- 
ing a pretext to go over to David. His influence in Benjamin 
was considerable — perhaps it was worth something with the 
Sheikhs of the other tribes. He could at least negotiate with 
David and secure his own future. 

Hence his message to David, which contained a round promise 
to bring all Israel over to him in case terms could be agreed 
upon. David insisted, as a preliminary, that Saul's daughter 
Michal, the wife of his youth, should be returned to him — she 
had been married to another soon after David's flight from 
Gibeah. Was David moved by sentiment ? Had he cherished 
the memory of her affection through all these years ? Or, was he 
simply anxious to wipe out the disgrace that attached to him in 
another man's possessing what he had a claim to? Or, was he 
only politic— did he think his possession of Saul's daughter 
would strengthen his position as Saul's successor? We are en- 
tirely in the dark in the endeavour to answer these questions. 
The demand was made, and Abner hastened to accede to it. 
Formally it was made to Ishbaal, the execution was intrusted to 
Abner. Possibly the affair was purposely planned in such a 
way as to give Abner a good pretext for visiting David. The 
distress of the woman's husband is vividly set before us. What 
her own feelings were, we are not told ; but we can readily see 
that her introduction to the court of Hebron could not have 
been very happy. Her harsh words to David at the time of the 
bringing up of the Ark, were probably the breaking out of long 
pent-up feelings.^ 

The airangement between David and Abner was easily made. 
The king knew the value of the man with whom he was dealing. 
A feast was held to ratify the compact between them.'^ Abner 

^ 2 Sam. 3 ^^^ contains the account of Abner's trespass, his treason, and 
his death. The narrative is not free from difficulties, but there seems no 
reason to question its main statements. 

2 A sacrificial feast is what we expect on such an occasion, but probably all 
feasts were sacrificial in this period. 



140 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

agreed to use his influence with the Sheikhs in favour of David. 
The king, on his part, must have agreed to reward Abner with a 
high place at court. Perhaps he already felt the inconvenience 
of having too powerful a servant, such as we know Joab to have 
been ; in which case he was hoping to use Abner as a counter- 
poise. One thing, however, must have been discussed. Abner 
was in blood-feud with Joab on account of the death of Asahel. 
There must have been some pledge of security on the part of 
the king, an assurance that the king's peace was stronger than 
tribal claims, and that the king's peace would be made effective in 
his favour. It would imply gross carelessness to leave this 
point untouched in the negotiations. 

Whatever assurances passed between the parties on this point, 
they reckoned without their host. Joab had been sent with his 
troops on an expedition, so that Abner' s visit might be made 
without disturbance. Returning soon after Abner had taken his 
departure, he learned what had occurred. It could not be pleas- 
ing to him to have at court a possible rival and a certain enemy. 
Whether he fathomed David's inner purpose or not, he needed 
no concurrent motive to seek Abner's blood — the most sacred 
duty of a clansman rested upon him ; for blood-revenge makes 
its demand most stringently on the nearest kin, and one's own 
brother is nearest of all. The severest regulations of Moham- 
med, enforced by the sanctions of religion, failed in some in- 
stances to control his followers in this matter, and we cannot 
wonder that David, a recently elected monarch, should fail to 
make the king's peace binding in the face of natural impulse 
reinforced by tribal morality. Joab was impetuous and unscru- 
pulous. His expostulation with David showed the freedom 
which he enjoyed at court. He doubtless felt that David, him- 
self a kinsman, was unfaithful to his blood in giving Abner a 
safe-conduct. The safe-conduct did not avail with him. Send- 
ing for Abner on the pretext that some matters of detail were yet 
to be arranged, he took him aside in the city gate. His brother 
Abishai kept off any meddlers, and Joab took his revenge by 
stabbing Abner to the heart. The only thing strange in the 
matter is the security which Abner seems to have felt. Perhaps 
he was intoxicated with the prospect of the new honours he was 
about to receive at the hand of David. 

David was innocent in the matter, and his indignation at the 



DAVID 141 

violation of the king's peace showed itself in the violence of 
his language. In strong objurgation he wished upon Joab's de- 
scendants filthy diseases, physical weakness, effeminacy, and 
poverty. But he did not venture to punish the offender. He 
could not get along without Joab. Doubtless his conscience was 
somewhat divided against itself. Tribal morality was still strong, 
and the common sense of the people would uphold Joab. To set 
up a new code might even endanger the throne. To purge him- 
self from the suspicion of having been an accomplice, however, 
the king himself followed the bier of the slain man and composed 
a dirge for the occasion : * 

" Should Abner die as dies the fool ? 
Thy hands were not bound, 
Thy feet not brought into fetters ! 
As one falls before ruthless men thou didst fall. " 

The death of Abner threw the kingdom of Ishbaal into confu- 
sion, for the incompetency of the king became manifest. Two 
soldiers of fortune, enlisted in his service, thought to make their 
personal profit out of the situation by the assassination of the 
unfortunate monarch. It is possible that they had other reasons 
for the deed.^ Their reception by David when they appeared at 
Hebron was different from their anticipation. The king's sense 
of justice conspired with his interest to discourage assassination, 
and the self-confessed criminals were executed on the spot.^ 
Their hands and feet, as the guilty instruments of the crime and 

^ The reader will notice the closeness with which this account has followed 
the Biblical text. The greater part of 2 Sam. comes from an old and well- 
informed source, which, however, is not as homogeneous as has sometimes 
been assumed. In the section just reproduced (2 ^-3 ^^) there are some un- 
evennesses due to interpolation. The most disturbing is 3 '^-^^ which repre- 
sents Abner as having made considerable effort to promote David's cause 
before he went to Hebron. This seems improbable, and, besides, the para- 
graph interrupts the thread of the story. 

' The obscure notice 2 Sam. 4 ^^ seems designed to explain that the assas- 
sins were not full-blooded Benjamites, but clients. It has been conjectured 
that the Beerothites were among the Gibeonites attacked by Saul, in which 
case these men had revenge to take. 

' Winckler supposes the statement legendary, influenced by the story of the 
Amalekite in 2 Sam. i. I should prefer to consider this the original. An 
exact historical parallel from the life of Ahmed Ibn Tulun is given by 
Stahelin, Leben Davids (1866), p. 28. 



142 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

the escape, were exposed to view in a public place. The head 
of Ishbaal, on the other hand, was carefully buried in the grave 
of Abner, his kinsman. The conduct of David toward the house 
of Saul gives no occasion for adverse criticism. 

At the same time, the new kingdom could not fail to benefit 
by the death of Ishbaal. The party of Saul was left without a 
competent head. Jonathan's only son was a cripple. The sons 
of Rizpah, of whom we hear later, were of inferior blood on the 
mother's side. The sons of Merab were reckoned to their fath- 
er's tribe. No doubt the temper of Benjamin was such that any 
near relative of Saul who had the qualities of leadership could 
have rallied the tribe to his support. But such a man did not 
appear. If Israel were to be united — and the course of events 
made this increasingly necessary — David was the only possibility. 
Hence the Sheikhs, no doubt after long debate among themselves, 
came to him and recognised him as king. The process probably 
went on gradually for a number of years. The step was often 
taken reluctantly, sometimes under compulsion, sometimes has- 
tened by concessions on David's part. It is a loss to history that 
we have not the details, and also that there has come down to us 
no copy of the '' covenant" which was entered into.^ The ex- 
istence of such an agreement (whether oral or written makes no 
special difference) shows that the king was not regarded as an 
absolute monarch. The Sheikhs made some effort to protect 
the liberties of the tribes. Moreover, they did not regard the 
recognition of the monarch as a pledge to continue his dynasty 
on the throne. The renewal of the constitution (if this be not 
too large a word) was expected at each new coronation. The 
parallel in the early Caliphate, where the monarch was elected by 
the suffrages of the Moslems, will occur to everyone. 

The Hebrew historian's lack of interest in what we should call 
political or constitutional history, leaves us in the dark concern- 
ing the measures that David took to unify his kingdom. Some 
such measures he must have taken. Israel was a congeries of 
clans, only feebly conscious of their common blood. Some of 
tliem were largely made up of Canaanite elements. Their jeal- 

^ The compact was made in Hebron " before Yahweh " (2 Sam. 5 ^), and 
had been preceded by a covenant with Abner, perhaps as representative of 
the tribes, 3 ^^' '^' ^^ ; though we must not lose sight of the possibility that 
the passages belong to different documents. 



DAVID 143 

ousies of each other were notorious. Ephraim had never taken 
kindly to the leadership of any other tribe; Benjamin was only 
half won over to the new king ; the wars between David and 
Ishbaal must have left many a feud unsettled. It was probably 
in view of the unsettled state of affairs that David removed his 
capital to Jerusalem. The location was excellent — a fortress that 
could easily be made impregnable, midway between Hebron, the 
capital of the south, and Shechem, the capital of Ephraim, with- 
out historic associations that could arouse the jealousy of any 
tribe, on the border of Benjamin, where he could keep an eye 
on that unruly tribe. The command of the highway from north 
to south was also important; less so the command of the road 
from Joppa to Jericho. It was a stroke of genius when David 
strengthened the citadel and removed his residence thither. The 
history of the city since his time has justified his choice. Even 
after the northern tribes had revolted from the house of David, 
no king ever thought of returning to Hebron. 

The choice of Jerusalem, then, is one of the steps taken to con- 
solidate the kingdom. We are tempted to put alongside of it 
the removal of the Ark to the new capital.^ But in doing this we 
should be importing into the transaction the ideas of a later time. 
It must be remembered that David had no idea of making a 
single central sanctuary for the whole country. In his time the 
land was full of sanctuaries. They were on every high hill and 
under every green tree, as a later prophet informs us, and up to 
this time no one had any idea that they were not all legitimate 
places of worship for all Israel. What David had in mind was 
to secure for his own residence — in fact for his own chapel — the 
ancient palladium of Israel. It was probably not the only sacred 
object that would grace the new place of worship. Abiathar, 
who had carried the ephod in the wilderness campaigns, was 
priest of the royal house, and naturally we suppose that he 
brought his ephod with him. But the Ark had been connected 
with the worship of Ephraim and Benjamin. Though it had 
remained in comparative obscurity since the time when the Phil- 
istines had returned it to its own territory, it was still venerable 
from its antiquity, and might be made to contribute to the rec- 
onciliation of the northern tribes. Doubtless, also, David was 
moved by a desire to have in his citadel such a pledge of the 
' ? Sam. 6 1-19. 



144 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

presence of Yahweh. Its ancient reputation as a leader in battle 
was known to him, and we find him sending it on some of his 
campaigns later. Piety and worldly interest seem to have com- 
bined to recommend the removal. 

David and his men therefore went to Baal Judah to bring up 
the Ark. The two sons of its guardian accompanied it, and, 
after the manner of the Philistines, it was carried on a cart which 
had never been profaned by any other work.^ David and a select 
choir of musicians joined in songs of religious exaltation before it. 
But the joy was marred by an untoward accident. The procession 
had already reached Jerusalem, and was climbing up the ascent to 
the citadel, when the oxen slipped in the miry street. The cart 
shook and the Ark seemed about to fall, when Uzzah, who was 
walking by its side, put out his hand to steady it. By what the 
spectators interpreted as an act of God, the rash man fell dead 
on the spot. We can hardly wonder that David was angry when 
he saw his care repaid by such an outbreak, or that he feared to 
have so incomprehensible a God near him. The nearest house at 
the time of the accident belonged to Obed-edom, one of David's 
Philistine mercenaries. Hither the sacred and dangerous object 
was brought, and here it was left, the aim of the day's work being 
unattained. 

Such is the story we find in our record, and, in spite of some 
difficulties,^ there seems to be no reason why we should not ac- 
cept it as substantially correct. The anger of Yahweh was in- 
deed unaccountable, for there is no evidence that Uzzah violated 
any regulation or tradition then in existence. But unaccounta- 

* Stahelin, Leben Davids^ p. 39 speaks of sacred wagons among the 
Phoenicians (Carthaginians), but I am not able to verify the reference or 
to confirm the statement from other sources. 

^ The opening statement (2 Sam. 6 ^), seems to be part of another narra- 
tive; it is difhcult to suppose that Kirjath-jearim, at which we left the Ark 
in the time of Samuel, is the same as Baal Judah, which seems to be the 
place where David finds it. For these reasons, and others, Cheyne (article 
"Ark" in the Enc. Bib.) thinks it more probable that David captured the 
Ark from the Philistines, bringing it from the house of Obed-edom in Gath. 
But it seems to me impossible to suppose that a Hebrew author of a later 
time would have enrolled Obed-edom, a Gittite, among David's men, and 
made him reside in Jerusalem, unless he were compelled by the facts so to do. 
The death of Uzzah is indeed mysterious, but not entirely inexplicable. In 
the views then held of the sacredness of the Ark, the man's own terror at his 
rash act is enough to account for the stroke that came upon him. 



DAVID 145 

bility was then attributed to the God of Israel. What He did 
here was only in line with what the people had observed else- 
where. The prophets had not yet arisen to teach that the divine 
acts were not arbitrary but were motived by righteousness. 

After three months' experiment, it became evident that Yahweh's 
anger was to have no further ill-effects. The prosperity of Obed- 
edom and his household became the subject of common remark. 
David was not minded to lose such advantages, and he resolved 
to bring the giver home to himself. This time, to avoid further 
accident, the Ark was carried up the hill on men's shoulders. 
The solemn procession was again formed, with the king at its 
head. As soon as it became evident that Yahweh was disposed 
to go, a sacrifice was offered.^ With shoutings and trumpetings 
the train entered the fortress, the king in advance whirling and 
leaping in the sacred dance, clothed in the primitive garment 
usually worn by the ministers of the sanctuary. Yahweh was in- 
troduced into the tent prepared for Him, lavish sacrifices were 
offered, and provisions for a feast were distributed to the people. 

Thus was consecrated a spot destined to become famous in the 
world's history. The Ark was connected by tradition with Israel's 
past ; it now became the central object of the royal sanctuary. 
That sanctuary became the site of Solomon's Temple, and the 
Ark continued its chief and central sacrum. To a later time it 
continued to be the unique symbol of the divine presence, and the 
pledge of the covenant between Yahweh and His people. Little 
of this was in David's thought ; he builded wiser than he knew.*^ 

The author of our account gives us a glimpse into the harem 
as a supplement to his story.^ Michal, Saul's daughter, had no 
understanding of her husband's religious fervour, though it was 
not unlike what she must have witnessed in her own father. 
Watching the procession from her lattice, she marked only the 

^ Doubtless by the king's own hand. We know that Saul offered sacrifice, 
and in the sacred character conferred by anointing, the king would find his 
right to act as priest. Later times drew the line more strictly. Assyrian 
parallels are given by McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, \, 
p. 64. The story of Melchizedek shows how easily even a late writer joins 
the offices of priest and king. 

2 To the account we have been considering a late, writer has appended a 
Messianic promise, introduced by a statement of David's desire to build a 
permanent temple, 2 Sam. 7. 

=* 2 Sam. 6 =^0-26. 



146 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

violation of conventional decency as the king, lightly clothed, 
leaped and whirled before the Ark. Her sarcastic greeting as 
he came into the house was perhaps the expression of something 
more than momentary feeling. The king's reply, with its re- 
minder of her father's dynasty and its fall, was not calculated to 
restore good feeling. The permanent estrangement that resulted 
was only too natural. 

As has already been intimated, we would readily spare some of 
the family history in which our authors are interested, if only we 
could have a clearer view of political events. All that we learn 
about David's foreign policy is, that after his defeat of the Phil- 
istines he turned his arms against the people beyond the Jordan. 
First attacking Moab he treated them with great severity. Two- 
thirds of the males are said to have been put to the sword. For 
this cruelty some special provocation has been looked for — 
treachery against David's family has been suggested for one 
thing.^ But it is doubtful whether any hypothesis of the kind is 
necessary. The Old Testament gives evidence enough of the 
bloody character of the wars carried on in those days. If we 
may trust a later writer,^ Edom was even more severely treated. 
What was left of these tribes was made tributary, and there 
seems to have been no attempt to embody them in the kingdom 
in the sense in which the tribes of Israel were embodied in it. 
The case of the Ammonites was different. They gave special 
provocation, and those of them who survived the war were put 
at hard labour. Their allies in the region of Lebanon were com- 
pelled to pay tribute.' Thus David became king over a respecta- 
ble territory, but one in which the heterogeneous elements were 
likely to fall apart when the controlling hand of the monarch 
loosened its grasp. The greetings of Toi, king-of Hamath, and 

^ The enigmatical insertion in i Sam. 22, to the effect that David intrusted 
his father and mother to the care of the King of Moab gives no basis for the 
suggestion. 

"^ I Kings, II ^^, where we are told that Joab slew all the males, Winckler 
supposes with some probability that in the first campaign Israel had been 
defeated, and that the severity of Joab was exercised in revenge, Alttest. Un- 
tersuchungen, p. 4. 

'2 Sam. 10 ^-11 ^ 12^^^^ From a later passage we learn that Shobi ben 
Nahash gave David substantial aid and comfort during the revolt of Absalom 
(ibid., 17 2^-29). It does not seem presumptuous to suppose that David had 
made him governor of Ammon after the defeat and execution of his brother 
Hanun. 



DAVID 147 

perhaps of the king of Tyre welcomed him into the circle of 
monarchs. According to the Hebrew writer, Toi sent him pres- 
ents, and the king of Tyre offered him artificers, Phoenicia be- 
ing far in advance of Israel in the mechanic arts. 

The court was organised on a more extensive scale than in the 
kingdom of Saul. David himself was, of course, the chief jus- 
tice, and was accessible to all his people. The case of the wise 
woman of Tekoah is enough to show this, and Absalom's insinua- 
tion of lack of due attention on the king's part to cases of wrong 
must be taken as the demagogue's perversion of the truth in his 
own interest. We hear now, for the first time, of an officer whose 
business it was to keep track of public affairs — a monitor for the 
king. Perhaps the Wezir of the Caliphate would fairly represent 
him. Two chief military officers are named — Joab over the army, 
and Benaiah over the Cherethites and Pelethites. We can un- 
derstand this only by assuming that Joab was the commander-in- 
chief, who led the whole effective force of the nation when it 
was called out, while Benaiah was the second in command. The 
Cherethites and Pelethites were the body-guard, a band of mer- 
cenaries recruited, as the name indicates, among foreigners, 
chiefly Philistines. The nucleus of the force was David's band 
of followers in the wilderness. A picked force of thirty men 
was distinguished by a separate organisation under their own 
commander. We hear also of a scribe, apparently the king's 
private secretary, and two priests are now counted among the 
court officers. One of these was Abiathar, the survivor of Saul's 
massacre at Nob, who had carried the ephod during the wilder- 
ness sojourn. The other, Zadok, was promoted for reasons 
unknown to us. The royal chapel seems to have had other func- 
tionaries, among whom David's sons were enrolled. Now, for 
the first time, we hear of an overseer of the forced labour, show- 
ing the way in which the king construed his prerogative. There 
was also a council whose members were called Friends of the 
King. They were entertained regularly at the royal table.^ 

As we should expect in an oriental monarch, when David's 
power and wealth increased, he increased also his harem.* In 

* The list of officers given in 2 Sam. 20 '^-^^ and less fully in 8^^^^ may 
readily be supplemented from other parts of the narrative. 

^ Mohammed again furnishes a parallel, both in the increase of his estab- 
lishment and in the sudden passion which seized him for his neighbour's wife. 



148 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

comparison with Solomon his establishment was modest enough. 
Six wives are known to us by name before the removal to Jerusa- 
lem, not including Michal. At Jerusalem he added considerably 
to the number. It is not improbable that he entered into alliance 
with neighbouring monarchs by marriage, but our sources record 
only one instance — Absalom's mother was a princess of Geshur 
— probably a Philistine district.^ Rabbinical ingenuity counts 
eighteen wives and concubines in David's establishment, but the 
ten concubines left by David when he fled from Absalom can 
hardly have been so large a proportion of the whole number — 
more than one-half. 

The story of David's adultery is so familiar, that the historian 
may excuse himself from repeating it.^ In its present form, the 
account has been worked over by a comparatively late hand, but 
there seems to be no reason to doubt the accuracy of its main 
features — the adultery, the attempt at concealment, the murder 
of Uriah. Similar incidents are common enough in the lives of 
absolute monarchs. The peculiarity of this one is the fidelity 
with which the moral sense of the community asserted itself in 
the rebuke by the prophet. 

Next to sensual indulgence, parental fondness for sons has been 
the temptation of oriental rulers. In this, also, David was the 
child of his own times, and of his own people. His sons grew 
up without the wholesome restraints which are needed in a court, 
though so difficult there to impose. The eldest gave way to his 
mad passion for his half-sister Tamar. Her brother Absalom 
avenged the outrage by killing the perpetrator. His banishment 
from the court was ended at the intercession of Joab, but his high 
temper is seen in his treatment of his benefactor. Not willing 
to wait for the throne until his father should be taken away in 
the course of nature, he stirred up the disaffection which he saw 
smouldering in Judah, The demagogic arts with which he se- 
duced the people from their allegiance are vividly described.'* 
No doubt there was wide-spread disaffection. Judah was angry 

' The Aramaic Geshur was too remote for David's alliance in his early 
career. It should be noted that one author makes David the possessor of 
Saul's harem, 2 Sam. 12^. 

'2 Sam. 112-12 23. 

'2 Sam. 15^"*. Absalom's personal charm is evident. The statement 
about his hair is possibly intended to tell us that he was also a religious 
devotee — in which character he would add to his influence over men. 



DAVID 149 

because the capital had been taken away from Hebron. Benja- 
min had Httle reason to love its conqueror. In the other tribes 
the new order of things could not fail to make some enemies. 
The temper of a considerable part of the people is indicated in 
oriental fashion by the conduct of Shimei.^ 

The extent of the disaffection was known to David, for he left 
his capital and retreated to Mahanaim, the stronghold of ancient 
Israelite loyalty. With him there went only his mercenaries, 
now apparently two companies — veteran Cherethites and Peleth- 
ites, and anew band under Ittai the Gitlite. Outside the king's 
own household none of the inhabitants of Jerusalem showed 
their loyalty by offering to fight for him. In fact, the whole 
country was aflame. Shimei would not have dared to show his 
hatred had he not been sure that Benjamin at least was of his 
way of thinking. The rebellion of the Bichrites mider Sheba, 
their Sheikh, was only a part of the general revolt. '^ When it 
became clear that Absalom was no improvement over David, the 
people gradually took sides. In the final battle David's forces 
included a considerable body of militia. But even here it is plain 
that his mercenaries turned the scale. The reduction of Abel in 
the extreme north of the country (near Dan) was the last act of 
an extended drama. The fierce quarrel which took place when 
David returned to his capital gives a vivid picture of the feeling 
between Israel and Judah, and we cannot say that David was free 
from bias in the way he treated it. 

It is hopeless to attempt restoration of the chronological order 
so plainly violated by our narratives. The two great calamities 
of David's reign are recounted for us in an appendix to the main 
history, and we must be content to take them in the same order. 
They are too characteristic of the times to be passed over. The 
first of these was one of the famines of which we hear in Pales- 
tine from the earliest times. When the visitation can-.e, David 
inquired of the oracle for the cause of Yahweh's wrath, and re- 
ceived the reply that blood rested on the house of Saul for his 
slaughter of the Gibeonites. The Gibeonites, as we have already 

*2 Sam. 16^". The abject submission of the rebel at David's return 
(19*' deprives him of the little sympathy we might give him as a kinsman 
of Saul. 

' Our sources present the revolt of Sheba as a sort of postlude to Absalom's 
usurpation. But it would have been madness to revolt after the suppression 
of Absalom. 



ISO OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

seen, were Canaanites who had entered into alliance with Israel. 
Such alliances were the rule rather than the exception in the time 
preceding the monarchy. Saul, within whose territory the Gibe- 
onites were located, was moved by the same sort of zeal for a 
purely Israelite nationality which later found such extreme ex- 
pression in the book of Deuteronomy, He was minded, there- 
fore, to disregard the solemn sanctions by which Israel was 
bound, and took steps to exterminate the Canaanitish section of 
the people. This was the more indefensible in that the people 
of Gibeon had Yahweh as their Baal. 

The interpretation put upon the famine was that Saul's disre- 
gard of the ancestral oath had brought guilt upon Israel. The 
blood could be wiped out only by blood. Who should suffer if 
not the descendants of the guilty man? The Gibeonites show by 
their language that they are acting both generously and justly 
in demanding that seven descendants of the guilty man shall be 
delivered over to them to be impaled before Yahweh at their 
sanctuary.^ 

Their demand was complied with, and the impaled bodies 
remained in the open air until the rains began to fall. The 
ghastly story is relieved by Rizpah's pathetic devotion to the 
children who were thus treated as malefactors, and whom she 
must think under the curse of God. Through the weary weeks 
she watched them with a mother's care. When the first rains 
proclaimed that Yahweh was reconciled, David showed his appre- 
ciation of her devotion by giving the bones of the unfortunates 
honourable burial. The fact that the incident added to the sta- 
bility of his throne should not make us impugn his motives. So 
far as the record shows, we have no right to accuse him of insti- 
gating the execution. The consideration which he showed to 
Jonathan's son, Meribbaal, is inexplicable, in case he had a set 
purpose to exterminate the house of Saul.'-^ Him he made a pen- 
sioner, and to him he restored the property of Saul. 

^2 Sam, 21 *-*, The implication is that they might have demanded vic- 
tims from Israel at large, 

2 Meribbaal (the name has been disfigured by the scribes to Mephibosheth) 
might easily have been included among the execrated sons of Saul, had that 
been David's wish. Though himself incapable of reigning (being a cripple) 
his sons might have proved troublesome, and his death would have been as 
much a matter of state policy as the death of the others. The narrator shows 



DAVID 151 

Almost more strange to us is the account of another calamity 
which fell upon the people. This was a plague which is said to 
have destroyed tens of thousands of the people. The plague itself 
is not unaccountable — history has many such visitations to record. 
But strange, indeed, is the Biblical writer's theory concerning it. 
He supposes it to be a punishment for a census taken by David. 
Modern expositors have been much put to it to reconcile such a 
theory with our view of the character of God. Their conjectures 
concerning David's pride, his plans for military display or activ- 
ity or similar sinful motives are wholly without support from the 
text in our hands. The truth is that we have here one of the ideas 
common to primitive religions — that man should not inquire into 
those secrets which the gods prefer to keep to themselves. The 
number of inhabitants of a country is such a secret ; hence the 
wrath of Yahweh at the census. The difference between this 
point of view and that of the priestly writer, who gives us such 
elaborate statistics concerning the number of the people, must be 
evident. 

The account before us is interesting from its bearing on the 
history of the Temple. Its main points are that when the plague 
reached Jerusalem David's intercession for his people was heard ; 
that the pledge of favour was a vision of the destroying angel 
standing over the threshing-floor of Araunah ^ the Jebusite. On 
this site, therefore, there was an altar erected because of the vi- 
sion, and by later tradition this altar fixed the site of Solomon's 
Temple. We must distinguish between diff'erent parts of the 
narrative. There is nothing improbable in the supposition that 
David erected an altar in commemoration of the staying of the 
pestilence. But that the threshing-floor of Araunah was in the 
immediate vicinity of the palace of David, and on the highest 
point of what must have been the fortified hill of Jerusalem, is 
incredible. The site of Solomon's Temple was determined by 
the location of his palace. The altar erected by David must 
have been only one of the numerous sanctuaries of Jerusalem in 
this period. It is not surprising that the Temple attached to 
itself legends that were originally concerned with other sanctu- 
aries. 

In the last days of David's life, when his end seemed near, the 

* The name is variously written and the original form is uncertain. Cheyne 
{Enc. Bid. s. v.) proposes to correct to Adonijah. 



1 52 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

palace was disturbed by those intrigues with which we are too 
familiar in the history of oriental royal families. The succession 
had never been settled, and the throne would fall to that son 
who should be best able to maintain himself in it. To secure a 
following in the court was the object of the ambitious princes. 
Two of them became prominent in this struggle. No doubt it 
would have been the part of wisdom for David to designate 
his successor in such a way that there could be no mistake. But 
as the making of a will is one of the things which a man will- 
ingly postpones, so the designation of a successor is apt to be put 
off by a monarch. In David's inexperience it is not strange 
that he had neglected to look forward to what should take place 
after his death.^ Though there was no law of primogeniture, it 
was natural for Adonijah (the oldest son living) to look upon the 
throne as belonging to him. He therefore began to assume royal 
state in proportion as his father kept in retirement. He counted 
among his adherents the older officers of David — Joab and Abia- 
thar certainly could not be accused of disloyalty to David. But 
Bathsheba had maintained herself as favourite wife ever since she 
had become an inmate of the harem. Her ambition was to see 
her son Solomon on the throne — what mother is not ambitious 
for her children ? Among his adherents we find the priest Zadok, 
the prophet Nathan, and the captain of the body-guard, Benaiah. 
It is only in accordance with human nature that the two priests 
should take opposite sides, and that the two generals should like- 
wise be arrayed against each other. 

The 'older of the two princes desired to make his position ab- 
solutely secure. He therefore invited all the high officials (except 
those whom he knew to be hostile) to a banquet at the Serpent's 
Stone.^ The fact that he called all the men of Judah who were 
officers of the king makes it probable that he was trying to 
strengthen himself with the popular party. The narrator does 
not assert that any overt act was committed on this occasion ; 
but the festival was interpreted by the conservatives as a corona- 
tion feast. Very possibly the expressions of loyalty to Adonijah 

* Mohammed again furnishes a parallel, there having been no settlement 
of the question of his successor. 

2 A sanctuary is implied by the narrative. The location is given (i Kings, 
1 ®) as by the side of En Rogel. The latter is quite generally identified with 
the present Bir Eyyilb, in the Kedron valley, just below the junction of 
Hinnom. 



DAVID 153 

among his friends in this harmonious assembly were warmer than 
strict etiquette toward David would prescribe. 

Nathan, the court prophet, was the first to take the alarm. 
Very likely the lives of Solomon and his adherents would not 
have been safe had the plans of Adonijah succeeded. Bathsheba 
was persuaded that this was the case and at once used her influence 
with the king. She reminded him that he had promised the suc- 
cession to Solomon — an ambitious mother was very likely to 
have secured such a promise for her son. That whatever promise 
there was had been made privately to her and had not been pub- 
lished to the court is plain from this narrative. 

The body-guard was loyal to the old king, and it held the 
balance of power. By David's express command they escorted 
Solomon to another sacred place, Gihon,^ just below the palace, 
and less than half a mile from the Serpent's Stone. Here another 
feast was held and Solomon was anointed king. When the 
party returned to the palace, Solomon was seated on the royal 
throne and received the congratulations of the crowd. The news, 
brought to Adonijah by one of his adherents, showed his com- 
pany the danger in which they were placed, and they speedily 
took their leave of an enterprise now shown to be of doubtful 
success. Adonijah himself fled to the asylum of the altar and re- 
ceived only a conditional amnesty from the new king. His rash 
and impolitic request for one of David's concubines was inter- 
preted by Solomon (not unwilling to find a pretext, we may sup- 
pose) as the assertion of a claim upon the throne. The popular 
prince was put out of the way, and his leading adherents were pun- 
ished — Joab with death, Abiathar with deposition from the priest- 
hood.' 

Soon after the coronation of Solomon, the aged king was called 
away. His life had been an eventful one. Few of his years 
were without war or turmoil, but through all . difficulties he ad- 
vanced to a position higher than had been held by any man of 
his race. The best example of a self-made man, is what he has 
recently been called. That he prepared the way for the more 
showy reign of Solomon is one of the least of the things he ac- 
complished. He may be said to have created a united Israel. 

* Probably the present Fountain of the Virgin. 

' One of the best pieces of Hebrew narrative in our possession is this of 
the accession of Solomon, i Kings, i and 2. 



154 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

In his personal traits David presented an enigma such as we 
find in nearly all great men of antiquity. His attractive qualities 
cannot be doubted. In an age when courage was the first requi- 
site of a soldier, he was one of the most successful soldiers. The 
force of his character is seen in the influence he exerted over his 
turbulent band of adherents. Such a leadership implies charm 
as well as force. He won the favour of Saul and the friendship 
of Jonathan ; in a court that would naturally look askance at him 
when his monarch's jealousy was aroused, he walked so discreetly 
that he pleased all the people. His nragnanimity is illustrated 
in many of the stories that have come down to us ; he spared 
Saul when he had him in his power ; he refused the water which 
was to him consecrated by the valour of his intrepid soldiers ; he 
was mindful of his duty to his friend Jonathan, giving his son an 
honourable place at court ; he repaid the kindness of Barzillai 
by attention to his son Chimham ; not to mar the happiness of 
his return to Jerusalem, he spared Shimei, who had grossly insult- 
ed him.^ In the light of these instances we can readily see how 
he gained and kept the affection of those nearest him. 

The darker shades of the picture are not lacking, and have 
often given the enemies of tradition occasion to blaspheme. To 
estimate the man we must remember that he was an oriental, and 
therefore sensual, crafty, and cruel. In no one of these qualities 
did he fall below the standard of the times in which he lived. 
The case of Uriah, indeed, shocked the moral sense of his contem- 
poraries. It is not our concern to hold him up as a pattern of all 
the virtues. Probably few men of his time, however, would have 
gone through the difficulties which he encountered and done so 
little to offend the conscience of a later time.^ 

Later times made David a saint after their own ideal, a nursing 

* Our account makes David charge Solomon to do what he himself had 
sworn not to do, by putting Shimei out of the way. The present tendency 
among scholars is to discredit this story, as also the injunction to put Joab 
to death. It is argued that a defender of Solomon wished to relieve him 
from the odium of these murders. I think it doubtful whether Solomon's 
friends would have felt the need of defending him for acts entirely within 
his competency as ruler ; and, on the other hand, I think it extremely prob- 
able that David had a vivid recollection of the way in which he had been 
treated by both Joab and Shimei. 

^ On the character of David the reader will be interested to consult Cheyne, 
Aids to the Devout Study of Criticism (1892), Chapter II. 



DAVID 155 

father of the Old Testament Church, an organiser of the Leviti- 
cal system, and the author of the Psalter. It is this picture of 
David which has made the most difficulty for modern apologists, 
and which is impossible to reconcile with the one we have just 
considered. David's piety was real, but it was in accordance 
with the standard of his own times. He adorned his private 
chapel with the most sacred object within his reach. He doubt- 
less found peace and joy in the thought of Yahweh's presence. 
But of the Temple as the unique centre of Israel's worship, he 
had no thought. Instead of the elaborate ritual ascribed to him, 
he was content with the very modest service rendered by two 
priests. Our earliest accounts of him make him a musician, and 
a musician was also a poet. But whatever the nature of the 
songs which he sang as he whirled in ecstasy before the Ark, 
they were not the Psalms which have come down to us under his 
name. The dirges over Saul and over Abner which have come 
down to us, have strong claims to be considered genuine. But 
they are remarkable chiefly for the absence of any such religious 
faith or feeling as we find in the Psalter. We must be content 
with thinking of David's religion as of a very primitive type. 



CHAPTER IX 

SOLOMON 

Solomon ben David came into possession of a united king- 
dom, a full treasury, and the rule over various conquered dis- 
tricts. It is probable that he did not seek to carry further the 
military pohcy of his father, but that he contented himself with 
developing and enjoying the resources at his command. Between 
the lines of the narrative which has come down to us we are able 
to read that his method was that of the average oriental despot. 
The first impression made by the record is different. Hebrew 
writers of a later time, themselves op{)ressed and impoverished, 
looked back at Solomon's reign as, in more senses than one, a 
golden age. They were dazzled by the extent of his kingdom 
(which indeed they imagined to be greater than it really was) 
and by the amount of his wealth — he made silver in Jerusalem 
like stones, and cedar timber like the sycomores of the Shephela. 
This estimate has passed current to our own times. 

Whether the statements of the king's wealth and luxury are 
more or less exaggerated is a minor matter. The point that in- 
terests us, and which the narrative sufficiently brings out, is the 
mistaken statecraft of the ruler whose motto might well have 
been : The state — I am the state. In this view, a kingdom is the 
private estate of the monarch, to be exploited for his personal 
gain, or according to his personal fancy. Heavy taxes were laid 
upon the tribes/ and the free Israelites were made to render un- 
paid service in the forests and the mines. Trade and commerce 
were indeed fostered, but they were the king's enterprises, 
whose profits went into his own treasury. That the personal 
wealth of the king became enormous need not excite our wonder. 

The list of Solomon's officers^ shows at once the greater com- 
plexity of his establishment as compared with that of David. 

^ Judah, the king's own tribe, was perhaps exempt. 

^ I Kings, 4. Gray acutely conjectures, from the form of the names, that 
many of these olificers were foreigners ; Hebrew Proper Names (1896), p. 73. 

156 



SOLOMON 157 

We find now a special officer set over the provincial governors, 
and also a steward of the palace. But the most radical innova- 
tion was the partition of the kingdom into twelve districts, over 
each of which a pasha was appointed. The twelve districts did 
not correspond to the tribal divisions, as these are commonly 
given by tradition. But we must remember that the tribes were 
never strictly defined geographical divisions, whereas for the 
purposes of taxation the districts must be rigidly defined.' We 
might suspect the tribal boundaries ignored with the purpose 
of breaking them down, and so reducing the nation to uni- 
formity. But this would be attributing to Solomon a foresight of 
which he gave no other evidence. 

By what we should regard as a crude arrangement, each of 
these pashas supplied the palace with provisions one month in 
the year.^ No more recondite reason for the number of districts 
need be sought than the fact that there are twelve months in the 
year. The taxes were levied and paid in kind. We hear nothing 
of any fixed rate, but there are some indications that a tenth of 
the produce was the ordinary amount.' We may suppose that 
the method of collection was left to the discretion of the officer 
in charge. The way was thus opened to extortion and oppres- 
sion. We must remember, also, that the levying of direct taxes 
has always been objected to in the East. The sovereign has his 
private estate, and a share of the booty taken in war — why should 
he take the property of his subjects ? From this point of view 
the offensiveness of the new order in Israel can be imagined. 

More offensive, no doubt, was the corvee. This institution 
is apparently as old as the monarchy in the East — Egypt has 
employed it from earliest times. It goes upon the theory that 
the subjects of a monarch are his slaves, and are bound to do 
his work without pay. So Samuel threatens the people that the 
king whom they desire will impress their sons to do his ploughing 

^ The twelve divisions of Solomon may have helped fix the tradition of 
twelve tribes of Israel — which never were twelve in fact; cf. Luther, " Die 
Israelitische Stamme " in the Zeitsch.f. d. Alttest. Wissensch.^ XXI, p. 2,2> ff« 

'The months were, of course, lunar months. This necessitated interca- 
lation of a thirteenth month about once in three years. Who was responsible 
for this thirteenth month? Was Judah then called upon? It would be 
interesting to have more details. 

^ In the passage alluded to below, Samuel threatens the people that the 
king will tithe their fields and vineyards, i Sam. 8 ^^. 



158 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

and reaping, and to run before his chariots. The women, also, 
will be compelled to serve as embroiderers and as cooks. The re- 
sult will be to make the Israelites slaves instead of freemen. The 
threat here put into the mouth of Samuel is a composition of very 
late date ; but it represents, probably enough, the feeling of the 
people under every despotic ruler during their history. 

Had Solomon contented himself with requiring service for 
works of public utility in his own country, it would not have 
been so bad. But he made a levy for service on foreign soil. 
The oldest statement on the subject seems to be that he enlisted 
thirty thousand men for the work in Lebanon, dividing them 
into three sections, each of which was on duty one month at a 
time. We have, however, an additional statement that there 
were also seventy thousand carriers, and eighty thousand stone- 
cutters in the mountains.^ There is nothing incredible in these 
figures. For the building of the temple, in connexion with 
which the Biblical author makes the statement, the figures are, 
no doubt, too large, but when we consider the multitude of other 
works undertaken by the king, they do not seem exaggerated. 
The building mania, which had so often brought monarchs into 
difficulty, attacked Solomon. He not only rebuilt his capital, 
but he fortified various cities of military importance.^ The nar- 
rator knows also of other cities, cities for the chariot force, cities 
where the supplies were stored, in all of which building would 
be undertaken on a large scale. It should be noticed that the 
writer tries to shield the king from the charge of enslaving Israel? 
by insisting that he put to labour only the remnant of the Ca- 
naanites. But, as we have seen, a large part of Israel was of 
mixed blood ; the Canaanitish elements had been assimilated, so 
that any endeavour to impress these alone would infallibly affect 
Israelites also. And the revolt of ten tribes of Israel after Solo- 
mon's death was based on the fact that the yoke had pressed 
heavily on all alike. 

^ I Kings, 5 27-30^ Two statements by diflferent authors are here combined. 
One refers to the work in the Lebanon region, the other to the work carried 
on in Palestine itself. As we find an officer of David's " over the forced 
labour" (2 Sam. 20^*) it is probable that David introduced the system, but 
he cannot have carried it to such lengths as Solomon. 

^ I Kings, 9 ^^^^ The cities named are at strategic points. They are all 
in Palestine, so we need not longer cherish the extravagant hypothesis which 
identifies one of them with Palmyra. 



SOLOMON 159 

The life of Solomon presents itself to us, therefore, as that of a 
decidedly worldly prince. The king's pride was his wealth, 
his costly buildings, his stores of treasure. The useless luxury 
of gold shields for his body-guard throws light upon his taste 
and his aspirations. He thought to vie with the kings of the 
world in pomp and luxury. The monarch with whom he came 
most closely into contact was Hiram of Tyre — possessor of a small 
country, but of great wealth.^ The relation of the two mon- 
archs is not altogether clear. The statement that Solomon deliv- 
ered to the Tyrian a large amount of grain and oil yearly, looks 
as though he were tributary, and the fact that later he ceded a 
considerable strip of territory also indicates that the Phoenicians 
had the advantage What Solomon gained by the alliance was 
knowledge of the Phoenician manner of trading. As ruler of 
Edom he had possession of the port of Eloth, at the head of the 
gulf of Akaba. Here he built ships and sent his own servants, 
under Phoenician masters, to trade with Arabia. The profits 
went into the king's coffers. As Arabia was a gold -producing 
country, we need not suppose that South Africa was reached 
by these fleets. Whether the commerce of India reached him by 
this route is not certain. The list of products imported has some- 
times been interpreted in this sense. But one or two obscure 
words in a comparatively late text can hardly establish the con- 
clusion. The money value of the importations, four hundred 
and twenty talents in a single voyage, must be viewed with sus- 
picion.^ 

Horses and chariots had never been adopted by the Israelites, 
owing to the nature of their country. David hamstrung the 
horses he captured in war, reserving only a few for purposes of 

^ What tradition tells about Hiram has been gathered by Movers, Die 
Phjtiizier, II, i, p. 326 ff. Our main authority is Josephus, who quotes 
from Greek historians. The letters of Solomon and Hiram, with which the 
history is embellished {Antiq., VIII, 50-56) are evidently Josephus's own 
composition. 

* I Kings, 9 2^; cf. 10^*, where a much larger sum is given as the king's 
income for a year. Such data cannot be more than conjectures. The Kings 
of Babylon and of Egypt engaged in commerce on their own account, cf. 
Winckler in Schrader, Keilinschriften und Altes Testament ^, p, 238. 
Winckler thinks that Solomon engaged in these expeditions as Hiram's vas- 
sal, but there seems to be no evidence of this. His cession of twenty vil- 
lages (I Kings, 9") only shows that Hiram was shrewd enough to get his 
partner into his debt. 



l60 OLD TESTAMENT HiSTORV 

show. Solomon was the first to make extensive importation of 
horses and chariots. Even here he seems to have had an eye to 
the profits, for the Syrian countries were the source of supply 
for Egypt, and the king might make this trade as well as the 
Arabian a monopoly.^ 

If we may credit the Hebrew accounts, Solomon went beyond 
any ancient monarch in the luxury of the harem. The enormous 
number of wives and concubines attributed to him must be made 
up by counting all the female slaves of the palace among the 
concubines. Even then the figures must be grossly exaggerated.''' 
The desire to cement alliances with his neighbours led him to 
take a large number of foreign princesses. The chief of these 
was the daughter of the reigning Pharaoh. Her father cap- 
tured the town of Gezer, till then unsubdued by the Israelites, 
and gave it to her as a marriage portion. The great king- 
dom of Egypt always looked down upon all smaller countries, 
and doubt has been thrown upon our account for this reason. 
But Palestine under a single ruler was a neighbour whose friend- 
ship was well worth cultivating. The importance which this 
wife had in Solomon's eyes is seen by the fact that he built a 
separate palace for her alone, out of all the hst.^ As it turned 
out, a change of dynasty in Egypt made the alliance of short 
duration. 

Next to his wealth (illustrated in his harem), the wisdom of 
Solomon is emphasised by the sacred writer. No doubt the av- 
erage man associates the wealth and the wisdom. Solomon could 
not so successfully have exploited his kingdom unless he had un- 
common ability — this is the reasoning which first led men to call 
the king wise. This reputation once established, tradition inter- 
preted the wisdom more generously. The ruler who is chief 

^ The original text (i Kings, lo ^S) is probably to be corrected, according 
to Winckler's conjecture, so as to state that the importers of horses brought 
them from Mu^ri and Kue, countries of North Syria. The forwarding to 
Egypt is therefore not indicated in the text, though it may be conjectured. 

^ The received text gives 700 wives and 300 concubines. The two items 
are nc^t in the right proportion, and we are inclined to suspect that 70 wives 
and 300 concubines was the original statement (so Klostermann conjectures 
in his commentary). 

^ A discussion of which particular Pharaoh honored Solomon with his alli- 
ance will be found in the Zeitschrift der Dentschen Morgenl. Gesellschaft, 
LIV, p. 24 f. 



SOLOMON l6l 

justice of his people needs shrewdness to detect the false pleas 
that will be brought before him. The example of the two women 
whose case he decided shows that the king was credited with 
practical common-sense and knowledge of human nature in his 
administration of justice. The example before us may be classed 
with Sancho Panza's skilful adjudication of the test cases brought 
before him when he assumed the government of his island. 
Many an Arab Emir shows similar mother-wit in dealing with 
htigants. 

In allowing Solomon so much wisdom, we need not discredit 
the tradition which ascribes to him the composition of apothegms 
such as are contained in our book of Proverbs. Sententious say- 
ing, enigmas to test the wit of the social circle, maxims for the 
conduct of life, have been the stock-in-trade of oriental sages 
from very early times. While it is impossible with any certainty 
to afhrm that a single one of the Proverbs comes from Solomon, 
the book shows the kind of wisdom ascribed to him, and which 
he very likely possessed. The questions and answers with which 
he astonished the Queen of Sheba were enigmas and riddles such 
as the East delights in to the present day. Intellectual keenness 
is doubtless quickened by them, but they make no permanent 
contribution to man's store of knowledge. Our botanical sci- 
ence need not mourn the loss of Solomon's sayings concerning 
trees, " from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out 
of the wall." 

More important for posterity than either Solomon's wisdom or 
his wealth was the Temple. This importance, however, was not 
dreamed of by Solomon himself. To him the Temple was only 
one, and that not the chief one, of the many buildings which he 
erected. In the adornment of his capital he planned for the 
extension and rebuilding of the city wall and the erection of 
an extensive group of buildings which we might call his castle. 
This group included not only the king's residence, the palace for 
his chief wife, and the apartments of his other wives, but also a 
great hall of audience for state occasions, a smaller hall of judgment, 
and the Temple. The whole group was surrounded by a single 
wall which made it a citadel. The site was in all probability that 
of David's citadel, only enlarged by taking in more of the hill. 
Retaining walls such as were afterward built by Herod would 
make the ground sufficiently level. But that the natural uneven- 



l62 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ness of the site was not wholly overcome, is indicated by the 
constancy of usage which speaks of going up from the palace to 
the Temple.^ We may suppose, therefore, that the highest 
part of the hill was occupied by the sanctuary — as was the case 
also with the village high places. Next to it on the south was 
the palace, lower down were the houses of the town. 

The Old Testament writer does not make the arrangement of 
the buildings altogether clear. In the nature of things we should 
expect the great audience hall to be at the south side — thus more 
accessible to the people. This hall, from the number of cedar 
columns it contained, was called the House of the Forest of 
Lebanon. It has been plausibly supposed that its upper story 
was used as an armory. Its dimensions are given as one hundred 
cubits by fifty. ^ From this great hall opened a smaller room 
also supported by columns. This served as antechamber to the 
throne room, which was also the judgment seat of the king. The 
throne itself was esteemed a marvel of art, made of gold and 
ivory, decorated with the figures of lions and of bulls. 

Of the palace proper — the residence of the king and his house- 
hold — the author can tell us nothing. All the more detailed is 
his account of the Temple. The importance which this build- 
ing assumed in later history justifies his pains. It was, to be 
sure, not the King's purpose to build the single legitimate place 
of worship for all Israel. The Temple was to him one part of 
his castle — not exactly his private chapel, but the cathedral of 
his capital. Such a sanctuary might overshadow, it was not 
expected to supersede, others already in existence. The parallel 
between him and his father is exact. As David by bringing the 
Ark to Jerusalem did not interfere with the other sacred places of 
the land, so Solomon in giving the Ark a more gorgeous place of 
residence had no exclusive purpose. In the time of David, we 
find no surprise expressed that Absalom should vow a vow to the 
Yahweh of Hebron ; and both Adonijah and Solomon hold 
their festivals at other shrines than the one in the palace. In 
Hke manner Solomon gives proof of his esteem for other sanctu- 
aries than the one at Jerusalem, by going to Gibeon to worship. 



2 Say 170 feet by 85, i Kings, 7 2. A ground plan showing a plausible re- 
construction of the whole group of buildings fs given by Stade, Geschichte. 
I' P- 305 ; cf. also Benzinger's Commentary on i Kings. 5. 



SOLOMON 163 

Here in an ancient Canaanitish city was a famous place of wor- 
ship dedicated to Yahweh, which we have already had occasion 
to notice. Hither, therefore, came the young king to offer his 
sacrifices and to seek God's revelation.^ 

This example is significant, because it shows that the thought 
of a single legitimate sanctuary was far from the king's mind. It 
may be said indeed that the Temple was not yet built — such a 
plea is in fact made by the Deuteronomic editor of the Book of 
Kings. But the Ark was in existence, it was in the palace of 
David, it was now in the possession of Solomon. Yet he chose 
to visit the ancient and celebrated shrine at Gibeon. His inten- 
tion not to displace the older high places could not be more ex- 
plicitly set before us. Even in Jerusalem numerous other altars 
existed down to the time of the Exile. 

As we have seen, the site of the Temple was the summit of 
the hill on which Jerusalem was built. The Hardm es-SherifdX 
Jerusalem still retains its ancient sacredness. In this large area, 
the central object covered by the Dome of the Rock is the orig- 
inal summit of the hill. As the sacredness of hill-tops is abun- 
dantly shown in the history of Semitic religion, we are author- 
ised to conclude that this native summit is the original reason 
for the consecration of the place. We may go further, and con- 
clude that it was already consecrated to the genius loci before 
David's capture of the city. In that case Yahweh simply adopted 
the locality already occupied by another god — as at Gibeon he 
had displaced the local Baal or become merged in him. This 
process of amalgamation, as we know, went on at many places 
throughout the country. Parallels in the history of religion are 
abundant. The mosques of Islam are in many places the older 
sanctuaries — some of the most notable having been Christian 
churches. Christian churches often represent ancient heathen 
temples. The welis or tombs of saints throughout Syria are the 
successors of shrines originally consecrated to Baal or Astarte. 

To erect a permanent building for Yahweh is treated by at 
least some of the Hebrew writers as an innovation. This is 
hardly correct, as the sanctuary at Shiloh had doors, and a cham- 

^ Although it is not expressly so asserted, we may suppose that Solomon 
slept in the sanctuary in order to receive the revelation by a dream. This 
practice of incubation was widely spread in antiquity. Cf. Wiedemann, 
Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, p. 189. 



l64 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ber in which the Ark was kept. Micah also had a house for his 
image. But no doubt the desert God had for the most part Hved 
in a tent. In the majority of Canaanitish sanctuaries the sacred 
object was in the open air, though chambers were often built for 
the convenience of those eating the sacrificial meal.^ The altar 
must, of course, be in the open air. 

It is perhaps not without significance for our history, that 
Hiram of Tyre was a great temple builder. We can see how his 
example might influence Solomon. Unfortunately, no Phoeni- 
cian temple has been preserved to us. But there are some indi- 
cations that the plan of Solomon's Temple and its ornamentation 
followed Phoenician models.^ 

The essential thing in all the High-places was the sacred enclos- 
ure, within which was the altar and the object of worship. When 
the worshipper thought of the sanctuary it was this area which 
he had in mind — the Hardm at Mecca is a familiar example. In 
this enclosure Solomon chose to place a building, as a residence 
for the divinity. Its essential part was a chamber twenty cubits 
on a side — cubes play a part in Semitic religion elsewhere, the 
Kaaba being the most conspicuous example. In this inner cham- 
ber the Ark — and it alone — was kept. The doors into the ante- 
room were usually left open, as we may infer from the way in 
which the Hebrew writer speaks of the staves of the Ark being 
seen^ from the outer room. 

The outer room was twice as long as the inner, but of the 
same breadth and height. It was provided with a table for the 
sacred bread, and probably with a lamp.* The altar of incense 
seems to be a later addition. In front of the ante-room was a 
vestibule ten cubits deep. Around three sides of the building 
was a series of small chambers arranged in three storeys. These 
were store-rooms for the convenience of the priests, and probably 



2 The simple cella which constitutes the temple of Amrit is, in idea, the 
Most Holy place of Solomon's Temple. See Perrot and Chipiez, History of 
Art in Phcenicia (1885), p. 105. 

* I Kings, 8 ^. The verse is not altogether clear, but warrants this conclu- 
sion. 

* If the modest temple of Shiloh kept a lamp burning, it is probable that 
Solomon's was at least as well furnished. The statement concerning the 
ten golden lamps, however, i Kings, 7 *^ must be taken to be a late insertion 
in the text. 



SOLOMON 165 

of the king himself. The royal treasures would nowhere be more 
safe than in the immediate presence of the divinity. Contribu- 
tions to the Temple were paid in kind; votive offerings would 
come in abundance in the course of time; the vestments and 
implements of service must be kept within the sacred area; per- 
haps the sanctuary was early made a place of safe keeping for 
valuables belonging to individuals, as we know it was in later 
times. The need of such chambers is thus easily conceived. 

The house was built to face the east. Its walls were massive, 
of hewn stone. The stone was cut and fitted before it was brought 
to the spot where it was to be used. Doubtless this was in defer- 
ence to a superstition concerning the use of iron in building a 
sacred house. The oldest legislation of the Hebrews forbids 
building an altar of hewn stone, because the lifting of a tool upon 
it defiles it.^ The interior was panelled with cedar wood. The 
statements concerning figures carved in the panels, and concern- 
ing the gold overlaying are apparently late insertions into the text. 

The implements of service were cast in copper by a Phoenician 
artificer. Among these the first place must be given to the two 
great pillars which stood at each side of the door. These were 
about thirty feet high, and had a diameter of six feet. Each of 
them had an elaborate capital ornamented with pomegranates. 
Their importance was such that they received names, one being 
called Jachin and the other Boaz. These names are as yet un- 
explained, and have perhaps been mutilated.''* We must see in 
these columns enlarged examples of the ma^^eboth or pillars which 
always stood by the altars of Yahweh in the early time, but which 
later times rejected as idolatrous. Parallels are found in the pil- 
lars which stood before the temple of Melkarth at Tyre, and those 

* Ex. 20^^. Until very recent times traces of the same idea were found in 
the East. Thus, the smiths constitute a separate class, caste, or clan, in 
almost all oriental countries. The reluctance to have surgical operations 
performed is motived by a dread of the uncanny properties of iron, Russell's 
Aleppo"^ (i794)> II» P- 136. Abundant parallels from other religions will be 
found in Frazer, The Golden Botigh'^, I, pp. 344-352. 

' Conjectural emendations are given by Cheyne, Enc. Bib. col. 2304. 
Sketches of the pillars, or a plausible reproduction, may be seen in Stade, 
Geschichte, I, p. 332; in Kittel, Handkommentar, p. 62; Benzinger, Die 
Biicher der Konige, p. 44, and in Schick, Stiftshiiite, Tempel und Tempel- 
platz (1896), p. 83. The last-named work is of great value because writ- 
ten by an architect who has spent most of his life in Jerusalem. It pro- 
ceeds, however, on an entirely uncritical view of the Hebrew text. 



l66 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

which the author of the treatise on the Syrian Goddess * saw at 
Hierapolis, and which he took to be phalli. 

Next in importance to these must be rated the great tank called 
the Sea. The description is of a round reservoir ten cubits in 
diameter and five deep, made of copper mounted on twelve bulls 
of the same metal. Three of the bulls faced each point of the 
compass. As twelve is an astronomical number, it may not be 
too bold to see in these bulls symbols of the constellations, in 
which case the Sea is a symbol of the great celestial reservoir 
from which the earth is watered. Similar '' seas " are mentioned 
in Assyrian temples, and large vases of stone found in Phoeni- 
cian sanctuaries may be brought into the same class. ^ The sa- 
credness of water has always been emphasised in the East, as is 
seen in the worship of springs, to which the Old Testament itself 
testifies. This alone would account for the great Sea in the 
Temple. For the practical purpose of ablution ten smaller tanks 
(lavers) were provided, each holding forty baths. ^ Each of 
these was provided with a waggon on four wheels so that it could 
be moved from place to place as wanted. They were ornamented 
with figures in relief, of lions, bulls, cherubs, and palm trees. 
The bulls were sacred to Yahweh (or Baal), lions were the sym- 
bol of Astarte, the cherubs were well-known mythological figures, 
and the palms were also probably sacred. The significance of 
the ornamentation, therefore, is plain ; it indicated a syncretistic 
purpose in the building of the Temple. The multitude of smaller 
implements, pots, shovels, bowls, need not detain us, but we may 
notice the table for the twelve loaves of bread kept constantly 
before the face of Yahweh. This '' bread of the presence " is as 

1 This is reckoned among the works of Lucian. The reference is De Dea 
Syria, XVI. The two pillars at Tyre are mentioned by Herodotus, II, 44. 
See also the facade of the temple of Paphos, showing two similar pillars, in 
Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Phcenicia, p. 123. 

2 Reconstruction in Stade's Geschichte, I, p. 336 (copied by Benzinger). 
Compare the Amathus vase (nine feet in diameter) pictured in Perrot and 
Chipiez, Phcenicia, p. 290. 

'This amounts to over four hundred gallons for each. Figures of these 
"lavers" and their bases are given in Stade, Geschichte, I, p. 341, and 
Benzinger, p. 49. Cf. also the later study by Stade in the Zeitschr. fiir die 
Alttest. Wissensc/ifXXI (1901), pp. 145-190. This illustrates its subject by 
the bronze "bases" recently discovered in Cyprus, which are quite similar 
(except in size) to those in the Temple, On reservoirs of water in Baby- 
lonian temples see Keilinschr, und Altes Test., 'p. 525. 



SOLOMON 167 

old as the time of David, i Sam. 21 *"^, though Babylonian paral- 
lels are cited/ 

The cherubim are important for their association with other 
parts of the sanctuary. Two of them, of gigantic size, were 
placed in the Most Holy Place, where, with their outstretched 
wings, they overshadowed or shielded the Ark. From indica- 
tions in other parts of Scripture, we gather that they were com- 
posite figures, intended to represent guardian demons or deities.^ 
The winged bulls with human heads, so common in Assyria, are 
analogous, and may be the originals. But other religions show 
similar fantastic creations. 

Our account of the temple and its furniture makes no mention 
of the altar, or rather, it makes an allusion without a description.^ 
It is usually supposed that this is due to a late scribe who left out 
the description of the altar to make room for the old altar of the 
Tabernacle, which he supposed to be transferred to the Temple. 
So violent a procedure, however, must not be assumed without 
strong evidence. Even if a copyist had been bold enough to 
make the omission, he would have given us distinct information 
that the old altar was found sufficient. On the same principle, 
he should have left out the table of shewbread. It remains prob- 
able, therefore, that the original account said nothing of the 
altar. How can this be possible ? Looking carefully at the 
narrative, we discover at the end of the prayer of dedication, 
this curious statement: '' In that day Solomon consecrated the 
middle of the court which is before the Temple of Yahweh, for 
he offered there the burnt-offering, and the fat of the peace-offer- 
ing." The second half of the verse, which assigns the smallness 
of the copper altar as the reason for the king's act, may be only 
the late author's endeavour to account for a fact which had come 
down to him by tradition.* 

^ Keilinschr. und A lies Test., ' p. 600. The number twelve is common to 
the two religions. 

''■ The word cherub is not yet satisfactorily explained. On the Biblical 
conception the best discussion seems to be that of Vatke, Biblische Theologie, 
I, pp. 325-334. Compare also the articles in recent Bible Dictionaries. 
Winged figures in Phoenician art are illustrated by Perrot and Chipiez, 
PJmnicia, p. 134. It should be noted that lions are often used in decoration 
in Phoenician art, as in the Temple. 

' I Kings, 9 ■■^^. The verse is an insertion in the text. 

*The verse is 1 Kings. 8^*. The context is recognised to be of post* 
Deuteronomic authorship. 



l68 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

It may be doubted, further, whether a late author would have 
invented a statement of this kind. In the middle of the court 
was the precise spot where the altar should have stood. Did 
Solomon remove the altar after it was once set in place ? This 
seems impossible. Moreov r, we must raise a question whether 
a copper altar is conceivable at this period. All the altars in 
Israel were of stone or earth. If hewn stone was an unlawful 
innovation, we should expect metal to be out of the question. 

In Semitic religion, we are able to show that, in some cases 
at least, the altar was the sacred stone to which the place was dedi- 
cated.^ In the sanctuary at Jerusalem, the original sacred ob- 
ject was the native stone summit of the hill, and this occupied 
the centre of the court before the House of Yahweh. This then 
constituted the original altar of the sanctuary. Whether the ex- 
cavation in the rock, which reminds us of the pit at the base of 
Arabic altars, existed so early, may well be doubted. But, on our 
hypothesis, we find new reason for Isaiah's calling Jerusalem 
Ariel — or Altar-hearth.^ 

Other gods than Yahweh were worshipped in the Temple. 
This appears from many indications. The frequent efforts made by 
kings of Judah to purify the sanctuary, that is, to unify the wor- 
ship there, show how tenaciously the other gods held their places. 
This they could not have done had not antiquity been on their 
side. Who so likely as Solomon (the lover of horses) to intro- 
duce the horses of the sun into the sacred precincts ? Ezekiel com- 
plains that the abominations of the nations had shrines in the 
courts of Yahweh; and when the same author describes men wor- 
shipping images engraved on the walls, we think of the cherubim, 
palms, and lions of Solomon's time. The worship of foreign gods 
by Solomon himself is a plain matter of history. The indulgence 
of the Hebrew writers for their hero causes them to shield him 
by throwing the blame upon his wives. These are said to have 
turned his heart to other gods. But the statement is in itself im- 
probable. Granting that the wife did not adopt the god of her 
husband, and that therefore the foreign princesses should have their 
private chapels, this was no reason that their husband should join 
in the worship. The original kernel of the account is the state- 
ment that " Solomon built a sanctuary for Chemosh, the god of 

» Cf. W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 184 ff. 

' Is. 29 ^ ; the word occurs also in the inscription of Mesha. 



SOLOMON 169 

Moab, and for Moloch, the god of the Ammonites. ' ' * Undoubt- 
edly these sanctuaries were in Jerusalem, though the later author 
could not bear to think this, and removed them to the Mount of 
Olives. 

The motive for naturalising these gods in Jerusalem is not far 
to seek. Moab and Ammon were peoples kindred to Israel. 
Their territory was part of the same kingdom. It was right, in 
the view of the ruler, that these peoples should be conciliated 
and that their divinities should be recognised. It is nothing 
surprising, therefore, to find the tutelary deities of all Solomon's 
subjects united in a pantheon — the king's new Temple at Jerusa- 
lem. Statecraft would suggest such a step. The religion of 
Yahweh was not at this period sufficiently exclusive to protest 
against it. We shall be attributing later motives to the king if 
we suppose him to be a universalist, to whom all religions were 
equally true, and who found the one God in all the objects of 
worship. Rather must we suppose him a believer in the multi- 
tude of gods, each of whom ought to be conciliated in the inter- 
est of the throne and the nation. 

The inclusiveness of Solomon's worship did not imply that 
Yahweh was no more to him than the other gods. Doubtless he 
felt that Yahweh was nearer to him than the others, and that He 
was the God of Israel in a sense in which the others could never 
be. This was indicated by the fact that the central point of the 
Temple, the Most Holy Place, was appropriated to Him. At the 
dedication the king recited this verse: 

Yahweh has set the sun in the heavens, 
But Himself has willed to dwell in darkness. 
I have therefore built Thee a house to dwell in, 
A home for Thee for eternity. 

It is pleasant to think that this correctly expresses the spirit in 
which the building of the Temple was undertaken.^ 

* I Kings, 1 1 '. The word for sanctuary is bama, which is the same often 
translated High-place. The words of the Hebrew text, ofi the mount east of 
Jerusalem, are not original, as we see from Origen's Hexapla, which puts 
them under the asterisk. 

''' The long prayer of dedication and the benedictions in i Kings, 8, are so 
evidently a late composition that we must leave them out of view. The verse 
given above seems to represent the earliest tradition of the dedication speech. 
We cannot be sure that even this goes back to the time of Solomon. For 
correction of the text, consult the recent commentaries. 



I/O OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

The Temple contained many things at which later Jewish ex- 
clusiveness would have shuddered. Not only were symbols set 
up which were later called idolatrous, but the Temple servants 
were of a class later abhorred. As we know from Ezekiel, it 
was the custom of the Kings of Judah to endow the sanctuary 
with slaves captured in war. These were not only trained to do 
the work of the Temple, but we have reason to believe that some 
of them were consecrated to the obscene rites with which the 
Canaanitish Baal was worshipped. That Solomon was the first 
to introduce these foreign slaves into the sanctuary is perhaps 
indicated by the fact that after the Exile a class of Temple ser- 
vants were still called '^ Sons of the servants of Solomon." ^ 

The reign of Solomon was not only the culmination of Israel's 
worldly glory; it was also the beginning of its decline — so soon 
does decay follow maturity. The various parts of the kingdom 
were held together by no internal bond. The rule of the mon- 
arch enforced a unity so long as it was rigorous. But even in 
Solomon's lifetime it began to relax, and the provinces moved 
for their independence. The most ancient account which has 
come down to us speaks of the revolt of Edom. We learn that 
at the subjugation of this country by David, one prince of the 
royal house (a small boy) escaped to Egypt. Here he was wel- 
comed by the Pharaoh, who brought him up with his own chil- 
dren. At the death of David, the now adult prince returned to 
Edom and re-established himself on the throne. How extensive 
his territory was we cannot say; the fact that Solomon retained 
command of the caravan route to the Gulf of Akaba indicates 
that Edom did not regain all that had belonged to it earlier. 
The great empires of the East have continually shown the phe- 
nomena which here appear on a small scale. ^ The readiness of 

^ Neh. 7 '^'-^^, Ezra, 2^^. In both passages they are classed with the A^e- 
thinim, who are known to be descendants of Temple slaves, cf . Ezra 8 ^o. 
That some of them were Canaanites is indicated by the tradition that Joshua 
reduced the people of Gibeon to the position of slaves of the sanctuary^ 
Josh. 9 23-27. 

2 The account of the revolt of Edom, i Kings, ii ^*-22, is confusing, be- 
cause it is made up from two different documents. One tradition made 
Hadad brought up by Pharaoh's wife, the other made him marry the 
queen's sister. There are indications also that a Midianite prince has been 
mixed up with this Hadad. Winckler {Alttest. Untersiich., pp. 1-15) first 
called attention to the literary phenomena. I cannot discover the necessity 
for substituting the North Arabian Mucri for Egypt iri this passage, 



SOLOMON 171 

Egypt to foster disintegration in Palestine need cause no re- 
mark. 

From another hand we have the story of Rezon. This hero is 
described as a bandit captain who estabhshed himself in the re- 
gion of Lebanon, and who finally got possession of Damascus. 
Here he founded a kingdom, which later became a standing 
menace to Israel. He belongs in this connexion only if he took 
away territory belonging to Solomon. It is probable that he 
did take away such territory, for David made tributaries in this 
region. The further remark that Rezon *'was Israel's enemy 
all the days of Solomon," indicates that his revolt took place 
early in the reign. ^ 

More serious was the revolt of Jeroboam ben Nebat, because it 
affected the very centre of the kingdom. It was suppressed, 
however, during Solomon's life, and so the discussion of it does 
not belong in this chapter. Solomon is said to have reigned 
forty years. Tradition magnified his wealth and his wisdom, and 
as time went on the conviction arose that if he had been a wise 
man. he could not have found satisfaction in luxury and idolatry. 
So he became, in the latest Jewish literature, a type of the peni- 
tent roue who has tried all the resources of earth, only to find 
them impotent to give happiness. Whether the real Solomon 
ever had such an experience is impossible to say. All that the 
record pictures is an oriental despot, luxurious and oppressive, 
but possibly good-natured and genial in personal intercourse. 
Of statesmanship, in our sense of the word, he had not the 
faintest glimmer. His religion was of the type held by his con- 
temporaries. Nothing can be attributed to him that really ad- 
vanced Israel in its world mission. 

Concerning the social condition of the people during the 
reigns of David and Solomon, we know little. On the side of 
religion, we know that when the Israelites entered Canaan they 
brought their God Yahweh with them. But they found a fully 
developed religion already in possession of the country. Every- 
where there were sanctuaries to the local Baal. This god was 
worshipped as the god of fruitfulness, and the harvests which 
made the peasant's wealth were his gift. We can hardly suppose 

* The account, i Kings, ii^^-^^, has suffered in transmission. The editor 
was apparently anxious to pass as lightly as possible over these unpleasant 
incidents. 



1/2 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

the nomads to naturalise their Yahweh at once as lord of the 
land. It would be their thought that the god of the cultivated 
land would know better than the god of the desert how to make 
the harvests grow. We can understand, if we do not excuse, the 
continual tendency of the Israelites to seek the favour of Baal — a 
tendency of which the prophetic writers complain without ceasing. 

We may go further. We have found abundant reason to sup- 
pose that the conquest of Canaan was really a gradual amalgama- 
tion of Israelites and Canaanites. The two people lived side by 
side (in many communities) on friendly terms. The alliances by 
which they secured mutual rights were entered into by recogni- 
tion of each other's divinities. Baal and Yahweh were respected, 
and in some cases worshipped, by both parties. Baal admitted 
Yahweh to his sanctuaries — nay, the process went so far that Baal 
and Yahweh were identified. The meaning of Baal (^Lord) fa- 
cilitated the identification. It was easy to say that Yahweh was 
the Baal of Israel. Names borne by sons in the family of Saul, 
and in the family of David (l^\ibaal, jBaaija.da.) show how deep- 
rooted w^as the idea.^ On the other hand we find the Canaanites 
adopting Yahweh. Gibeon, as we know, was an ancient Ca- 
naanitish city. The people were reckoned Canaanites in the time 
of David. Yet the sanctuary of their city was the sanctuary of 
Yahweh, for it was before Yahweh that they impaled the sons 
of Saul. More striking still, it was this Canaanitish sanctuary 
which Solomon chose out of all the high places of the land, when 
he wanted to honour the God of Israel.^ 

What had taken place here, had taken place all over the land. 
Yahweh was no longer the God of the desert, or of Horeb ; ' He 
had become the God of the land, and David complained that in 
exile from Canaan he was banished from the presence of Yah- 
weh.* The ancient sanctuaries of Canaan were in a position to 
exercise a strong fascination on immigrant Israel. They had an- 

* Perhaps the most significant indication is the name Baaliah (i Chr. 12 5) 
which is given as the name of one of David's captains and which means 
Yahweh-is-Baal. The place-names Baal-Judah and Baal-Perazim (the latter 
given by David) are also significant of the amalgamation. 

^Cf. what was said above (p. 163) about the adoption of old sanctuaries 
in a new religion. 

' Although Horeb no doubt retained its ancient sanctity. This we see 
from the story of Elijah. 

* I Sam. 26 1«. 



SOLOMON 173 

tiquity in their favour ; their ritual was ornate and sensuous ; 
they were the centres of civilisation, of trade, and of dissipation. 
That they should maintain their influence is what we might ex- 
pect. Syncretism resulted, even in the Temple at Jerusalem. 

Socially and politically, the old tribal organisation was still 
strong. The people had become cultivators, but the institutions 
of the desert survived. In imposing the machinery of taxation, 
the king had no thought of changing the social order. The 
new pashas and the old sheikhs lived side by side. The old 
customary law was still administered in the gates. Although the 
king was chief justice, and an appeal to him was open to any 
subject, there seems to have been no attempt to appoint subordi- 
nate judges by his authority. Had Solomon been the originator 
of improvements in the legal system, tradition would almost cer- 
tainly have known something of it. A recently discovered mon- 
ument of early Babylonian jurisprudence, shows us what might 
reasonably have been expected of a Hebrew king who was noted 
for his wisdom. This monument is the code of Hammurabi, 
king of Babylon.* The monarch who promulgates it regards 
himself as commissioned by the gods '' to establish justice in the 
land, to destroy the wicked in order that the powerful may not in- 
jure the weak," and a relief sculptured on the pillar possibly rep- 
resents him receiving his laws from the sun-god. No doubt Baby- 
lonian and Hebrew ideas are alike, in that Yahweh also was the 
guardian of right and the source of legislation ; the example of 
Moses shows as much. Solomon may well have looked upon him- 
self as divinely commissioned to administer justice. Tradition 
makes him pray for wisdom and gives a legal decision of his as an 
example of the wisdom intended. But Solomon nowhere saw the 
royal opportunity to codify and publish the law of the land for 
the guidance of his subjects or of his officials. In this he was 
behind his Babylonian predecessor. 

This example is instructive as showing how little Babylonian 
influence was found in Palestine. There can be no doubt that at 
one time this influence had been paramount there. But that time 

^ A German translation is published by Winckler, Die Gesetze Hammur- 
abi's (iqo2), and an English translation of Winckler's German is given in the 
New York Independent for January 8, 15, and 22, 1903. Hammurabi's 
reign is dated about 2000 B.C. ; Solomon's coronation may be placed approx- 
imately at 970 B.C. 



174 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

was long past. The Israelite invasion had done away with Baby- 
lonian institutions. The people who came in from the desert 
brought their own laws — or rather lack of laws — with them. 
Now, no doubt, in a society comparatively settled, they were de- 
veloping a system of common law. The earliest Hebrew code 
which has come down to us ^ was published at a date consider- 
ably later than the time of Solomon. But it embodies usage 
which is as old as Solomon or older, and we may use it to throw 
light upon the social conditions of the time. Its simplicity when 
compared with the code of Hammurabi confirms its indepen- 
dence. The points of resemblance, some of which are striking, 
are features common to oriental society. 

The chief interest of the legislator was in the rights of property. 
The most important class of property was slaves, if we may judge 
from its heading the list. A Hebrew might be sold into sla- 
very for debt. The code provides in such case that he shall 
not be held more than six years without his own consent. This, 
however, seems not to have been recognised as binding law at 
any time. The example shows that this code, in some cases, ex- 
pressed the ideal of the writer, rather than actual practice. It is 
interesting to notice that the author assumes that there will be 
household gods in each dwelling — reminding us of the teraphim 
in David's house. 

A Hebrew girl (it is assumed) is likely to be sold into concu- 
binage, which is, in fact, the recognised form of marriage. In 
such a case, sale to another master will be a hardship, and the right 
of the master is limited so that he must allow her own family to 
redeem her. Polygamy is recognised, care being taken only that 
the different wives shall be treated alike. The one discriminated 
against may claim her freedom. 

Murder is punished according to the custom of blood-revenge. 
Unintentional killing is now differentiated from murder, how- 
ever, in so far that the altar of Yahweh provides an asylum for the 
manslayer if the killing be unintentional. Injury to a slave, in- 
flicted by a master, was injury to a man's own property, and 
was not punishable unless death ensued immediately. Ordinary 
cases of injury by assault were punishable by talio — an eye for an 

^The so-called Book of the Covenant, Ex. 2022—2333. Cf. Baentsch, Das 
Bundesbuch (1892), and his commentary on Exodus, p. 185 ff.; also Briggs, 
Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch (1897), pp. 211-232 and 242-255. 



SOLOMON 175 

eye, a tooth for a tooth, wound for wound — doubtless the penalty 
was inflicted by the injured person or his next of kin. A large 
amount of attention is given to injury of cattle or by cattle, to 
damage of crops, to theft, and to loss of articles loaned or in safe 
keeping. Seduction of a virgin is treated as a damage to property. 

If, as seems probable, the Book of the Covenant has preserved 
to us the first endeavour to write down some of the examples 
of case law,^ its importance for literature is not inferior to its 
importance in legal development. The reign of Solomon would 
naturally foster literature. The new-felt unity of Israel would 
lead to a collection of Israel's traditions. Legends, long cir- 
culated orally, would now be put in written form. The poetic 
monuments of past achievements would be zealously sought. It 
is probable that considerable portions of the literature thus put 
into shape have come down to us imbedded in the works of later 
writers. 

Among the productions of the period we may, with some con- 
fidence, put the so-called Blessing of Jacob. ^ A poet here puts 

* The oldest portions of the book probably contain notes of actual cases, 
written down, not as authoritative legislation, but for information on prec- 
edents. By far the greater part of the laws in this code are in the form of 
judgments (cf. Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, p. 252 ff.) which 
state a case hypothetically and then give the decision, as : " If a man smite 
another so that he die, he shall be put to death." It is noticeable that this 
is the form of the laws of Hammurabi. It seems probable also that the 
two codes were alike in arranging the laws in groups of five, though this is 
not rigorously carried through in either one. Specific points of resemblance 
are the following : 

Thou shalt not suffer a maker of spells to live (Ex. 22 ^8) : If one cast a 
spell upon a man ... he shall be put to death (Hammurabi i). 

If a man steal an ox or a sheep ... he shall restore five oxen for an 
ox and four sheep for a sheep (Ex. 22 ^) : If a man steal an ox or a sheep or 
an ass or a swine belonging to a god or to the king, he shall restore thirty 
fold ; if it belong to a freeman he shall restore ten fold (Ham. 8). 

He that stealeth a man . , . shall be put to death (Ex. 21 ^^) : If one 
steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death (Ham. 14). 

If a thief be found breaking in and be smitten that he die, no blood shall 
be shed for him (unless the sun be risen, Ex. 22 ^0 '• If o^e breaks into a 
house he shall be slain before the breach and buried there (Ham. 21). 

On trespass of cattle, cf. Ex. 22^ and Ham. 57 f. On goods entrusted to 
another for safe keeping, cf. Ex. 22 ^-^^ and Ham. 112. The talio is en- 
forced by Ham. 196-201. The striking of a father is punished with death 
in both codes. 

2 Testament of Jacob would be a better name. It is found in Gen. 49. 



1/6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

into the mouth of Israel, the eponym of the nation, verses char- 
acterising the different tribes. Reuben has already lost his pre- 
eminence. Simeon and Levi have been punished for their inhu- 
manity. But Judah has the suzerainty over his brothers. Dan 
and Gad live on the frontiers, where their valour defends their 
country from the raiders. Joseph is second only to Judah in the 
blessings which are allotted to him. With such appeals to the 
clans we may suppose the poet to rouse their emulation and stim- 
ulate their pride. 

Other portions of the poetic anthologies cannot be pointed out 
with certainty. We may assume, however, with some probabil- 
ity, that the oldest sections of our historical books were written 
down in this period. Interest in the dynasty of David would 
make the life of that king one of the first subjects to be treated. 
We may also suppose that it now became the fashion at the more 
celebrated sanctuaries to have the traditions of the Patriarchs put 
into written form. Solomon's own interest in literature may 
have been genuine ; in any case his reign was of permanent im- 
portance in the development of Israel, more from the stimulus it 
gave to literature than for its wealth or commerce. 



CHAPTER X 

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 

The attempt of an ambitious satrap to make himself an inde- 
pendent monarch is a constantly recurring phenomenon in 
oriental history. Such attempts in the outlying districts of Solo- 
mon's kingdom we have already chronicled. Another in the 
centre of the kingdom need cause no surprise when we remember 
the fierce and haughty temper of Ephraim. Such an attempt was 
made during Solomon's life, though suppressed for the time be- 
ing. It was headed by Jeroboam ben Nebat, a man of obscure 
origin, but of energetic character. According to our sources, 
he attracted the attention of Solomon, who promoted him to 
the position of overseer of the forced labour in the country of 
Ephraim. According to an intimation in the Greek version,^ he 
fortified his native place Zereda, and enlisted chariots in his ser- 
vice. This almost ostentatious indication of an intention to re- 
volt aroused the vigilance of Solomon, and Jeroboam was obliged 
to flee to Egypt. He found an asylum with Shishak (Sheshonk) 
a king not friendly to Solomon.^ Here he watched the course 
of events, and apparently kept in communication with the Sheikhs 
of Ephraim. Change of the throne is usually the signal for civil 
disorders in the East, and so it proved in this case. As soon as 
Solomon's death was announced, Jeroboam returned to his native 
town, which was within easy reach of Shechem, the capital of 
Ephraim. 

We remember Shechem as the city in which Abimelech had 
once set up his kingdom. The fact that Rehoboam, who succeeded 
to Solomon's throne in Judah without opposition, found it neces- 
sary to come hither for recognition shows how much of the old 

^ The passage partly duplicates the Hebrew text, but is in part original. It 
is printed by Swete {Old Testatnent in Greek), as 3 Kings, 12"^^^-^, in La- 
garde's edition as 3 Kings, 12 2^^^. 

^ The statement that Shishak gave him his daughter in marriage seems to 
have come in by confusion with the story of Hadad. 

177 



178 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

tribal independence remained. Solomon had been fortunate in 
that he had been crowned during his father's lifetime, when the old 
king's prestige was sufficient to secure the allegiance of all divi- 
sions of the kingdom. The Sheikhs of Ephraim did not conceive 
that they had sworn loyalty to the dynasty of David for all time. 
The temper of the tribes was different from what it had been 
forty years earlier. They had experienced the rigour of despot- 
ism, and the Sheikhs had no hesitation in demanding relief: 
'' Thy father made our yoke heavy; lighten thou the hard ser- 
vice of thy father and his heavy yoke, and we will serve thee." 
Whether specific demands were made — exemption from forced 
labour or a limitation of the amount — cannot now be made out. 
The young king took time to consider, and to consult with 
his advisers. The older men counselled moderation — it was 
necessary to yield only this once in order to get the throne 
thoroughly established ; afterward he would be able to do what 
he pleased. But the younger courtiers, brought up to look upon 
the common people as the born slaves of the monarch, advised no 
concessions. These, the playmates and boon companions of the 
prince, were the ones who had his ear. In accordance with their 
advice he responded to the deputation when they came for their 
answer: ^'My little finger is thicker than my father's loins." 
The single sentence ^ left no doubt concerning the speaker's es- 
timate of his own powers, or concerning his purpose to exercise 
those powers to the full. 

Though Jeroboam had returned from Egypt he does not seem 
to have been present at these negotiations. Probably he thought 
it would be better to be called by the people than to put himself 
forward as a leader. To start the revolt was easy. The cry was 
raised : 

" What part have we in David, 

Or portion in the son of Jesse ? 

To thy tents, O Israel ! 

Now look to thy house, David ! " 

It was the old war-cry kept in memory since the time of Sheba, 
the Bichrite. When it had aroused the people to arms, then 

^ It was unnecessary to add an explanation in the specific threat to make 
their yoke heavy and to chastise them with scorpions. This would have 
been insulting, and we may charitably suppose that the narrator has ex- 
panded the earliest account. 



FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 1/9 

the need of a leader was felt, and Jeroboam was pointed out as 
the man for the hour. He was sununoned from Zeredaand took 
his place at the head of the movement.^ 

No serious opposition could be offered by Rehoboam. He 
had no adequate armed force with him. In his infatuation he 
supposed that Adoniram, the chief overseer of the forced labour, 
would overawe the crowd. But the task-master only infuriated 
the people, and they stoned him to death, and the king was 
obliged to flee the city to avoid a similar fate. According to 
the narrative in our hands he called out the militia of Judah and 
would have attempted to regain his power had not a prophet in- 
terfered and warned him to desist. It is more probable that he 
found enough to do to keep the country immediately about Jeru- 
salem, Judah indeed was loyal, but Benjamin had never been 
well affected toward the house of David, and it would now be 
strongly drawn toward the kindred tribe of Ephraim.^ Hence 
we must suppose Rehoboam's work cut out for him near at hand. 
In fact the most ancient sources count the tribe of Judah alone as 
making up the kingdom of Rehoboam. Only such parts of Benja- 
min as could be overawed from Jerusalem were kept in his power. 

The judgment of posterity on Jeroboam ben Nebat has been 
curiously influenced by religious prepossession. When our histor- 
ical books received their present form, Judah alone was regarded 
as the people of Yahweh, the northern kingdom having perished. 
In seeking to interpret the ways of God, the author took the view 
that the revolt of Jeroboam was (although of divine appointment) 
rebellion against the legitimate rulers of Israel. It was also apos- 
tasy from the true religion, for the later time viewed the Temple 
at Jerusalem as the only authorised sanctuary of Israel's God. 
Our books of Kings proceed at once to pronounce judgment upon 
Jeroboam from this later point of view, and they repeat the 

^ I Kings, 12 ^"2" — one of the most vivid passages in the Old Testament. 

2 We must recognise that the narrative from this point on shows a strong 
religious bias. The latest author has no sympathy with the northern king- 
dom. The prophet who is made to forbid Rehoboam's campaign against 
Israel after he has called out the fighting men of Judah, is only one of sev- 
eral such anonymous figures introduced simply to give a moral lesson. The 
historicity of I Kings, I2 '^^ is defended by some authors who reject the verses 
that follow. But the whole seems to be of a piece, and there is nothing in 
the language to make us divide the passage. That the relations of the two 
kingdoms would be strained is probable, cf. i Kings, 14^". 



l8o OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

judgment on his successors, who 'departed not from his ways." 
Allowance must be made for this bias in reading the account. 
At the time of the revolt there was no consciousness of anti -relig- 
ious motive on the part of the northern tribes, and probably no 
accusation of apostasy was made by Judah. We cannot help 
thinking that the division was regrettable, because it weakened 
the people. But the coherence of the tribes had never been very 
strong; Judah and Ephraim had always lived in jealousy of each 
other ; the tyranny of Solomon had alienated whatever affection 
David had inspired. Only a succession of wise and strong rulers 
could have welded the independent clans that bore the name of 
Israel into a homogeneous people. Jeroboam deserves a place 
among those patriots who have roused a suffering people to throw 
off the yoke of oppression. What he did was morally certain to 
be done sooner or later. 

If the majority should rule, Jeroboam's right was better than 
the right of Rehoboam, By far the most important part of the 
nation was Jeroboam's. He had the larger territory, the more 
fertile provinces, the more numerous subjects, and greater re- 
sources. The fertility of Ephraim was proverbial, while large 
parts of Judah were fitted only for pasture. It was not without 
right, therefore, that the northern kingdom called itself Israel. 
That its boundaries extended across the Jordan is indicated by 
the fact that Jeroboam fortified Penuel. The province of Moab, 
as we learn later, fell to Israel instead of Judah — as David's con- 
quest it would seem to belong to the latter. 

Of Jeroboam's reign we know little. He built a palace at 
Shechem, which had ancient claims to be considered the capital. 
His interest in religion was manifested by his care for the sanctu- 
aries in his domain. Of these the most celebrated were Bethel 
and Dan. The former traced its sacred character to the Patriarch 
Jacob, who discovered there the presence of Yahweh, as well as the 
mysterious ladder which led thence to heaven. It was he, also, 
who erected the sacred pillar and inaugurated the cultus by pour- 
ing oil upon it. The stories mean, of course, that the place was a 
sanctuary before historic times, and this suggests that it was one 
of those taken over from the Canaanites. Dan also had a cele- 
brated house of God, which dated from the Israelite occupation 
of the city, and whose priests traced their ancestry to Moses. 
Here there was an image of Yahweh, the title to which was the 



FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU l8l 

right of the strongest, now confirmed by some centuries of pos- 
session. At Bethel the object of worship was the sacred stone. 

Jeroboam's zeal for religion was manifested in that he adorned 
each of these sanctuaries with a golden bull. Under this form 
he supposed that the God of Isaael might be worshipped, for he 
expressly declared in setting them up that this was the God 
which brought Israel out of Egypt. The writer who gives us this 
account regards the whole transaction with disapproval,^ and he 
assigns a political motive to the king — the fear that the people, by 
going to Jerusalem to worship, will be weaned away from him and 
turn back to Rehoboam. But this is plainly a later conception. 
There was no reason why the people should go to the temple to 
worship, for the land was full of sanctuaries. Even in Judah the 
Temple was not regarded as the only place of worship, for, as we 
know, the people were zealous in visiting the many high places 
there. No danger arose, or was likely to arise, to the throne of 
Jeroboam from the Temple. 

We are driven to suppose, therefore, that Jeroboam was moved 
by zeal for the God of Israel. He was a worshipper of Yahweh, 
as is shown by his giving his son the name Abijah.^ It is not 
unreasonable to suppose, further, that he was led to make the 
golden bulls by the established symbolism of the times. Whether 
the symbolism was the result of the adoption of Baal by Israel 
cannot clearly be made out. There are distinct traces of animal 
worship among the Hebrews in the earlier time, and among the 
animals none was more important to them than the bull. Before 
the introduction of the camel, neat cattle were the beasts of bur- 
den of the nomads. There is nothing improbable, therefore, in 
the supposition that in the desert Israel had worshipped Yahweh 
under the form of a buU.^ 

* I Kings, 12 ^^■'^. The passage is doubtless late, but it seems to be based 
on fact. The golden bulls are called calves by the Hebrew author because of 
their small size. It seems to be well established that Baal was worshipped 
under the form of a bull. 

'■' Yahweh-is-father is the meaning of the name. 

' The story of the golden calf made by Aaron is too late to be taken as evi- 
dence, but a certain amount of weight may be allowed it in connexion with 
what has already been adduced, and it certainly assumes that so venerable 
a man as Aaron was capable of worshipping Yahweh under such an image. 
In one ancient passage (Gen. 49 2*) Yahweh seems to to be called the Bull 
of Jacob. 



l82 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Religious conservatism accounts, therefore, for the misunder- 
stood act of Jeroboam. And the other deeds for which he is 
blamed by the Biblical writer must be judged in the same way. 
In appointing priests from the common people he was only fol- 
lowing the example of David and Solomon. In celebrating a 
festival a month later than it was observed in Judah, he was 
probably conforming to the established custom of the northern 
tribes. 

That in matters of religion Judah was not different from Israel 
is testified by the writer who is so ready to blame Jeroboam. 
He enumerates the ''abominations" that were found in Judah, 
among which are the high places, the sacred stones, the sacred 
poles, and the religious prostitutes. ''They did the like of all 
the abominations of the nations which Yahweh drove out before 
the sons of Israel." ^ We need no more explicit evidence of the 
syncretism of the period. 

The author of the Book of Kings, on whom we must depend 
for our history, had a difficult task before him in following a 
double line of narrative, and he has not always succeeded in 
making his account entirely clear. His plan for this period is as 
follows : First he gives an account of Jeroboam, of whom he has 
almost nothing to tell. He then takes in order the three Judaic 
kings w^hose reigns were wholly or partly contemporaneous with 
that of Jeroboam. After carrying the last of these to its con- 
clusion, he returns to the northern kingdom. Here he gives a 
continuous account down to the death of Ahab. For the king- 
dom of Judah he finds it necessary to give only a brief account 
of Jehoshaphat, and then resumes the other thread with the son 
of Ahab. This king was succeeded by his brother, within whose 
reign the son and grandson of Jehoshaphat came to the throne. 
\ The revolt of Jehu forms a convenient mark of division because 
it concerns both kingdoms — Jehu slew both the reigning mon- 
archs, thus making Athaliah's accession in Judah synchronous 
with his own in Israel. 

In this period, which we may estimate at about ninety years, 

^ I Kings, 14 2^ '. The sacred pillars {maffeboth) are stones erected at the 
sanctuary, like the one set up at Bethel by Jacob. The sacred poles {asherini) 
are stakes, also erected near the altar. Discussion of the significance of both 
will be found in the books on Old Testament archaeology. The mag^eba is 
paralleled in old Arabic religion. 



FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 1 83 

the most noticeable thing is the frequent change of dynasty in 
the northern kingdom. Judah seems to have settled on the house 
of David as its lawful rulers, but the principle of legitimacy 
scarcely obtained a foothold in Ephraim. Jeroboam, no doubt, 
had just cause against Solomon. But his success stimulated 
others to follow his example whether they had just cause or not. 
His own line lasted only through his son Nadab. This king was 
allowed to occupy the throne but two years when his general, 
Baasha by name, slew him and exterminated the family. When 
the rebellion broke out, the army was besieging Gibbethon, a 
Philistine fortress.^ As Baasha is called a man of Naphtali, it 
may be that tribal jealousies were in play. But the revolt of a 
military leader against his sovereign is so constant a phenomenon 
in some stages of society, that speculation on special motives 
should be indulged with caution. Baasha seems to have been a 
man of ability, for he pushed his frontier down to Ramah, so 
that Asa, King of Judah, was obliged to call in foreign help. 
The incident will occupy us later. Of Baasha we know nothing 
further. His son seems to have been a weakling who occupied 
himself with the pleasures of the table in which the wine-cup had 
a prominent place. While at a carouse in the house of his 
major domo he was assassinated by one of his generals, Zimri 
by name, commander of half the chariot force. ^ The usual ex- 
termination of the family of the murdered king followed. So 
cold-blooded was the deed, that the name of Zimri became pro- 
verbial for an assassin.' The crime did not long benefit the per- 
petrator. The greater part of the army was in the field, again 
engaged before Gibbethon. Seeing that they had the power in 
their hands, they proclaimed their general, Omri, king, and 
marched against the royal residence. The case was seen by 
Zimri to be hopeless, and he burned the palace over his own 
head, and so perished after scarcely a taste of power.* 

' I Kings, 15" ; the site is not yet identified. 

2 I Kings^ 16^^". The king's name was Elah, and his residence was at 
Tirzah, a place which we know to have been celebrated for the beauty of 
its situation, but which has not been certainly identified. 

' So we seem to be justified in concluding from the language of Jezebel, 
2 Kings, 9 3'. 

*The historian assigns him only seven days, but probably counts only to 
the beginning of the siege. It is curious to see how the fixed idea of the 
*' ways of Jeroboam " affects the writer — even Zimri's death is said to be a 



1 84 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Another section of the army desired to try its hand at king- 
making and proclaimed its general, Tibni, as king. The ensu- 
ing civil war seems to have lasted some time/ but Omri was vic- 
torious. He estabhshed himself firmly on the throne, and under 
himself and his son, Ahab, Israel reached its greatest outward 
prosperity. Evidence that he impressed himself upon foreigners 
as an unusual man may perhaps be found in the Assyrian inscrip- 
tions, for in these Israel is the House of Omri, even after the rise 
of another dynasty.^ The religious conflict which soon broke 
out will occupy our attention later. 

Turning now to the little kingdom of Judah, about all we can 
say is that the house of David maintained itself through the peri- 
od. The historian shows an utter lack of interest in political 
questions, while he is punctihous in pronouncing judgment upon 
the religious character of the different kings. This judgment is 
motived, however, by the later (Deuteronomistic) view of the re- 
ligion of Israel, and utterly foreign to that which a contemporary 
would have pronounced. Moreover, the grounds for the verdict 
are in almost every case obscure. We must suppose that there 
was a tradition concerning the attitude of the kings toward the 
sanctuary — a Temple chronicle or something of the kind. Re- 
hoboam is accused of folly by the record we have already consid- 
ered, in his inconsiderate treatment of the best part of his kingdom, 
resulting in his loss and shame. His mother is said to have been 
an Ammonite princess. According to the Greek version, she 
was a daughter of the Hanun upon whom David made war.' 
Beyond this we know nothing of his reign, except that the King 
of Egypt — the Shishak of whom we have already heard — invaded 
the country, entered Jerusalem and carried off the rich treasure 

punishment for his walking in these ways and making Israel to sin, though 
the reign of seven days would give no opportunity for the king to show his 
policy. 

^ Four years, if we may trust the data of the text. Compare i Kings, 16 ^^, 
with 16 23. 

2 Cf. Schrader, Keilinschriften und Altes Test?, p. 189 {^Cuneifonn Insc. 
and Old Test., I, p. 179). 

3 I Kings, 12 2*a (Swete's O. T. in Greek). The name of the queen-mother 
— the Gebira or mistress of the palace — is regularly given in connexion with 
the name of the reigning monarch. In polygamous societies the mother al- 
ways occupies a position of great influence, greater than that of any wife, for 
the wife may be supplanted at any time by a rival, 



FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 1 85 

Stored in the Temple/ It has been supposed that the Pharaoh 
was moved to this step by a desire to assist his friend Jeroboam. 
But the lists of Shishak himself seem to show that he did not 
draw the line at Judah, but also plundered the northern kingdom. 
No motive beyond a desire to seize the treasure at Jerusalem need 
be imputed to the invader. The smaller kingdoms were the 
natural prey of the stronger. Solomon's lavish use of gold was 
probably a matter of common fame. The gold shields of state 
carried by the royal guard on solemn occasions were captured at 
this time. They were replaced by Rehoboam with shields of 
copper.^ What surprises us is that the Temple treasury, though 
often plundered, was so soon replenished. 

The natural sequence of Shishak' s invasion would seem to be 
the dependence of Judah upon Egypt and, in fact, it may have 
been the great king's object to reassert the supremacy maintained 
long before by his predecessors. The Hebrew writer is discreetly 
silent on the subject. Nor does he tell us anything of Rehobo- 
am's son, Abijam,^ and his brief reign, except that he walked in 
all the sins of his father. 

Asa, son and successor of Abijam, is more favourably spoken of. 
He is said to have expelled the impure hieroduli from the land, 
and to have deprived his mother of her position as mistress of the 
palace, because she was concerned in idol worship.* The details 
of the alleged reform are obscure; we may suppose it a protest 
against the extreme tolerance shown by Solomon. More intelli- 

^ Shishak (the name is vocalised in various ways by the Egyptologists) came 
to the throne about 960 B.C. He was the founder of the twenty-second dyn- 
asty. Shishak's list of plundered cities is discussed by W. Max Miiller, 
Asien und Europa, p. 166 flf., and also by Goldschmied in Zeitschr. d. Detit- 
schen Morgenl. Gesellschaft, LIV, p. 1 7 f. 

2 The Greek version makes the booty to be the shields taken by David from 
Zobah. As their use when the king went to the temple is mentioned, we may 
suppose that the king and his guard performed their worship by a solemn 
procession (i Kings, 1423-28) 

' The name was doubtless Abijah, which has become corrupted in our copies 
of I Kings. His mother is called daughter of Absalom, by which the noto- 
rious son of David may be meant. 

* She is charged (i Kings, 15 ''"^^) with having made a 7)iiphle<^eth for the 
ashera. The word miphle^eth is entirely obscure, but from the context it is 
easy to see that an idolatrous image is in the mind of the writer. The ashera, 
however, was in this period an entirely innocent accompaniment of the wor- 
ship of Yahweh, so that there is some confusion in the mind of the writer, or 
else his text has been corrupted in transmission. 



l86 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

gible, though less commendable, is Asa's action with reference to 
Baasha, King of Israel. The two Hebrew kingdoms had been at 
enmity from the time of the division. Because Judah was much 
more affected by the Egyptian invasion than was Israel, or be- 
cause it recuperated more slowly, Baasha was able to push his 
frontier down to Ramah, less than five miles from Jerusalem. 
Here he proposed to stay, and began to fortify the place. The 
inconvenience of a hostile fortress almost overlooking the capital, 
together with the shame of having a neighbour assert his predomi- 
nance in the face of all the world, was more than Asa could 
bear. With short-sighted policy, he resorted to a measure which 
was repeated by his successors at different times with disastrous 
effect. He looked around for an ally who would make common 
cause with him against Ephraim. Such an ally he found in 
Israel's northern neighbour, Benhadad,^ of Damascus. With the 
gold and silver at his command, including what had accumulated 
in the Temple since the incursion of Shishak, Asa bribed Ben- 
hadad to take his part. The Syrian, nothing loath, broke off 
his relations with Baasha, and by an attack on northern Israel 
forced him to withdraw from Ramah. The result was a substan- 
tial addition of territory to the kingdom of Damascus,^ and the 
inauguration of warfare which became chronic between Syria 
and Ephraim. Judah received temporary relief, and Asa was 
able to recover Ramah, whose fortifications he razed, using the 
materials in strengthening his frontier at Geba and Mizpah, His 
action was no doubt interpreted by the Syrians as an act of sub- 
mission which involved the regular payment of tribute and which 
thus laid the foundation for future troubles. 

Omri, the founder of a new dynasty in Ephraim, removed the 
capital to Samaria. Doubtless a city had existed on this site 
from very ancient times. The strength of the position^ is shown 

^I leave the name as it is in our Hebrew text, though there is some reason 
to suppose that the Aramaic original was diffeient, cf. Winckler, Alttesta- 
mentliche Unterstichungen, p. 69 ff. 

2 The towns named are Ijon, Dan, and Abel-beth-maachah, all of which are 
in the extreme northern district. The text adds "and all Cinneroth, with the 
whole land of Naphtali." This would mean the district west of the Sea of 
Galilee, but it is doubtful whether the Syrians could permanently hold this 
part of Israel. The account is found in i Kings, 15 ^^^^. 

3 " A round isolated hill over three hundred feet high," in the centre of a 
fertile plain, cf. Robinson, Biblical Researches, ^ II, p. 304, G. A. Smith, 
Hist. Geog., p. 346. 



FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 187 

by the sieges which it withstood. The city remained the seat of 
government down to the destruction of the northern kingdom. 
Omri's ability is indicated not only by the prominence of his 
name in Assyrian annals, but also by the fact that he conquered 
or reconquered Moab, as we learn from the inscription of Mesha. 
The Hebrew historian accuses him of walking in the sins of Jero- 
boam, but this is the stereotyped charge against all the kings of 
Israel. The source from which the writer drew seems to have 
laid special stress upon the power of the king, but the details of 
that power and its exercise are lost to us. 

Ahab, the son who succeeded to the throne, receives an evil 
name first because he married Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, king 
of the Sidonians, or, as we should put it, King of Tyre.^ The 
foreign marriage was no more than had been customary with the 
kings of Israel. David married a Philistine or Canaanite princess. 
Solomon had not only an Egyptian king's daughter, but also 
princesses from Ammon and other neighbouring nations. Jezebel, 
however, was a more energetic personage than any of these. She 
made herself conspicuous by the ruthless way in which she urged 
Ahab to assert the royal power. In this way she made herself 
not only conspicuous but hated, and the hatred easily extended 
itself to all the measures associated with her name. 

An example of her influence in the administration of affairs is 
the outrage upon Naboth. It is refreshing to find in an oriental 
monarchy a subject who is not altogether subservient to the 
wishes of his sovereign. Naboth was such a subject. When the 
king coveted his vineyard he sturdily refused to sell it — the family 
inheritance was too precious to be alienated. Ahab understood 
and perhaps valued the sturdy Israelite independence, though 
his vexation at the opposition was acute. At any rate, he saw 
no way to attain his desire in the face of refusal. But Jezebel 
had a different idea of royal prerogative. The Sheikhs of the 
town were subservient enough to act upon a hint from her. 
Naboth was arraigned and executed upon false witness suborned 
by them. The owner being thus put out of the way, it was easy 
to seize the coveted vineyard. Such methods were abhorrent to 
Israelite feeling, and this feeling was voiced by the prophet who 
sought out the king as he entered upon his new possession, and 

1 What is known of him may be found in Pietschmann, Gesch. der Phoni- 
xigr {iSSg), p. 297 f. 



1 88 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

to his face denounced his crime: ^'Hast thou murdered and 
robbed? In the place where the dogs licked up Naboth's blood 
shall they lick up thine also." ^ That the king was not hardened 
in his course is evident from his repentance which followed and 
which seems to have been openly expressed. To later genera- 
tions, however, the blood of Naboth seemed to rest on the house 
of Omri, and the fall of the dynasty was interpreted as the divine 
requisition of that blood. 

The marriage w^ith Jezebel was doubtless intended to cement 
an alliance of the two kingdoms represented. Ahab was also on 
friendly terms with Judah. Very likely he was trying to 
strengthen himself against the Syrians of Damascus, his hereditary 
enemies.^ Unfortunately we are not able to make out the course 
of events with any clearness. Twice during Ahab's reign the 
Syrians seem to have penetrated to the centre of Israel, and to 
have besieged the capital, but the final result was in favour of 
Israel. Ahab was not anxious to press his advantage and made 
an agreement with Benhadad, by which a quarter was to be set 
apart for Israelite traders in Damascus, and a similar concession 
was to be made to the Damascus merchants in Samaria. The 
pledges given were not kept by Benhadad, and Ahab went to 
war again with the help of Jehoshaphat, to force the promised 
surrender of Ramoth Gilead. This, however, was near the close 
of Ahab's life, and the whole Syrian controversy possibly belongs 
in the latter part of his reign. 

Our sources give a large space to the life of Elijah the prophet, 
which comes within this reign. The activity of this extraordi- 
nary man is described to us in terms that show what impression he 
made on his contemporaries, rather than what he was in himself, 
and what he accomplished for Israel. The legendary accretions 
of the narrative are only too evident. Among its exaggerations 
we may count the assertion that Jezebel was an active persecutor 
of the religion of Yahweh. The statement that she slew all 
the prophets of Yahweh is inconsistent with the fact that Ahab 
maintained a band of four hundred court prophets, from whom 
he inquired the will of Yahweh. In a scene which we shall con- 

1 I Kings, 21 19. 

2 Winckler supposes that Ahab was incited by Assyria in his hostility to 
Damascus. In fact, Assyria was beginning to take a lively interest in the 
affairs of Syria; of. Keilinschriften und A lies Test. ', pp. 43 and 166. 



FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 189 

sider later, Jehoshaphat of Judah, who was certainly a faithful 
worshipper of Israel's God, was present, and had no suspicion 
that these were anything but genuine prophets of Yahweh. Mica- 
iah, who is called in because of his independence of the court, 
does not intimate that the court prophets were devoted to any 
other God than his own, though he supposes them to be deceived/ 
The existence of such a body of Yahweh prophets at the capital 
at the very close of Ahab's life is incomprehensible if any serious 
attempt had been made to suppress the ancestral religion. To 
this must be added the significant fact that Ahab gave his chil- 
dren names compounded with that of Yahweh.^ It may be doubt- 
ed, moreover, w^hether Jehoshaphat would have made alliance 
and intermarriage with an avowed enemy of Israel's God. 

Nevertheless, we must suppose that some sort of religious con- 
test went on in Israel during Ahab's reign. The origin of it may 
also be attributed with some certainty to Jezebel. As Solomon's 
wives had their sanctuaries in which they might worship each her 
own god, so this queen had a temple of the Tyrian Baal erected at 
Samaria. This sanctuary received importance from the political 
alliance of Tyre and Israel. Whether the fact that Jezebel's father 
was a priest of Astarte increased her zeal for her own religion we 
cannot say. But it would not be surprising to find a priest's 
daughter industrious in adorning the religion she professed, in 
such a way as to make it attractive to her subjects. The officials 
at court would pay their respects to the Tyrian god for reasons 
of state. It would be natural for others to join them in seeking 
the advantages of a new religion. In this way a party of Baal 
worshippers was formed in the capital. They were not numer- 
ous even there, as we learn from their easy suppression by Jehu, 
and it is not likely that many were found in the provinces. 

Political and religious opposition go together in the East. We 

^ It is evident that our account of Ahab is made up from at least two dif- 
ferent sources, one of which painted him much blacker than he was. The 
account referred to above (i Kings, 22 ^-^^) is from the older source. On the 
literary questions the reader may consult Driver, Literature of the Old Testa- 
ment, or the recent commentaries to Kings. 

2 The son who succeeded him was called Ahaziah (Yahweh is strong); the 
second son, who also came to the throne, was Jehoram (Yahweh is exalted); 
and the daughter who married Jehoshaphat was Athaliah (Yahweh is great [?]). 
Another son, Joash, is mentioned, whose name is of similar composition, 
though one element is of unknown meaning (i Kings, 22 '^^^ 



190 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

cannot doubt that Elijah was a pronounced opponent of the for- 
eign queen. His sympathy with the common people would lead 
him to denounce acts of oppression like the murder of Naboth. 
Denunciation of the imported religion and customs would natu- 
rally come next. And the Tyrian Baal, becoming the object of 
hatred, would involve the other Baals whose worship had already 
been adopted in Israel. 

We have already had occasion to notice that Yahweh was orig- 
inally the God of the desert, whose home was in Horeb, Sinai, 
or Kadesh. Horeb was still his main seat, even down to the 
writing of the life of Elijah. Although by the Ark, or by the 
Tabernacle, or in some way, He had been brought by the nomads 
into Canaan, He was not (in the mind of the Israehtes) the God 
of the land. The land was in possession of numerous local 
divinities (Baals). Yahweh might dispossess these, as in some 
cases He dispossessed their worshippers. But, for the most part, 
the conquest was by amalgamation rather than by violence. 
Where alliances were formed with the older inhabitants their gods 
were recognised. The connubium (as was rightly seen by the 
Deuteronomist) involved the worship of the divinities of both 
parties. Moreover, it was the naive idea of the desert peoples 
that the Baals would be better acquainted with agriculture than 
was their own God. It would be safer for the cultivator to 
look to them for the fruits of the ground. Israel's constant 
temptation would be to worship Yahweh and at the same time 
serve the other gods — as the Assyrian colonists were reproached 
with doing later. The tendency was reinforced by the greater 
attractiveness of the Canaanite sanctuaries. Here all the re- 
sources of the superior civilisation were brought into play to 
make the people ''rejoice before their god." 

So far had this syncretism gone, that Yahweh and Baal had 
become practically identified in the minds of the people at large. 
This was easy, because the word Baal (Lord) could be applied 
to any God. One could say without offence that Yahweh was 
Israel's Baal. From this point of view, we can understand the 
use of the word Baal in Israelite proper names, where there is no 
thought of backsliding from the religion of Israel. Gideon was 
called by a name compounded with Baal. So was a son of Saul, 
and a grandson of his as well. David gave a similar name to at 
least one of his sons. In all these cases there can be no suspicion 



FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU IQI 

of departure from the religion of Yahvveh. Nevertheless, the con- 
fusion between Israel's Baal and the Baals of Canaan was dan- 
gerous in its tendency, likely to lead in the long run to the 
prevalence of the sensual and polytheistic religion of Canaan, 
and unless counteracted certain to result in the degradation of 
Yahweh to a place among a multitude of gods. 

So far as we know, no protest came until the days of Ahab. 
Then it seems that the introduction of the Tyrian Baal led to 
more serious reflection on the nature of Yahvveh, as contrasted 
with the nature of the Baals in general. The result was a reaction 
against the Canaanitish elements of the popular religion, in favour 
of the primitive and simple worship of the desert. No doubt this 
was, in part, a revolt against civilisation itself. The nomad, ac- 
customed to privation, sees something abnormal in the luxuries 
of a wealthy society. He has reason to be shocked by the vices 
of the towns. The older society into which the Israelites had 
come was — in comparison with the desert life — both luxurious and 
vicious, and its religion partook of both characteristics. The 
prophets of a later time tell us plainly that the sanctuaries of 
the land were given over to feasting and drunkenness and gross 
sensuality. 

In the time of Ahab we meet striking testimony to this reac- 
tion in the person of Jonadab ben Rechab. This man, who was 
chosen by Jehu to witness his zeal for the ancestral religion, was 
himself an embodiment of zeal on this behalf. He had laid upon 
his clan a solemn injunction to drink no wine, to build no house, 
to sow no seed, to plant and own no vineyard. They were to 
live the old nomad life in tents for ever.^ Such a vow could have 
none but a religious motive, and the motive in this case must 
have been devotion to the ancestral religion, in opposition to 
Canaanitish innovations. 

Elijah was the hero and leader of the reaction of which Jonadab 
was a symptom. Jonadab contented himself with the salvation 
of his own clan ; Elijah preached the crusade among the people 
at large. From the meagre descriptions which have come down 
to us, we conclude that the prophet was a typical Bedawy — the 
man clothed in a blanket of hair. His native district was Gilead, 
a region where the Israelites longest retained the pastoral life. 
His sudden appearances and disappearances, and his long desert 
' Jeremiah, 35 ^-^^ 



192 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

journeys, show the nomad's acquaintance with the country, its 
rocks and hiding places. His protest against the current rehgion 
is made known by his flight to Horeb — only here could he be 
sure of the effective protection of Israel's God. He believed that 
the Israelites, in forsaking their rude, primitive altars of unhewn 
stone, and in thronging the luxurious sanctuaries of Canaan, were 
really forsaking Yahweh. To call their new Baal by the old name 
of Yahweh did not diminish their guilt. His proclamation of 
the famine was a protest against the popular idea that Baal was 
the giver of fruitfulness. By withholding rain and mist, and mak- 
ing the judgments known to His prophet, Yahweh, God of Israel, 
showed who was master of the elements in His land. It was be- 
coming plain that Israel could not serve two masters. For the 
first time, perhaps, it was borne home to them that Yahweh is a 
jealous God, who tolerates no rival in the affections of His people. 

The legend-building imagination of later times has embodied 
Elijah's life-work in the scene at Mount Carmel, where the 
prophet stands alone against the four hundred prophets of Baal, 
and where the answer by fire brings the people back to their al- 
legiance.^ We cannot suppose the incident historical in the form 
in which it is narrated. After such a triumph we can find no 
reason for Elijah's flight to Horeb, or for the despairing cry 
there uttered, that he alone was left of the true servants of Yah- 
weh. We may, however, suppose that the prophet's active op- 
position to Baal- worship, combined with his championship of the 
rights of the people against the tyranny of the queen ^ brought 
upon him the wrath of Jezebel, and that he was compelled to 
flee the country. 

The weapons of this warfare were not exclusively spiritual. 
The separation of church and state is a modern and occidental 
idea. In an oriental society, the religious propaganda could not 
be separated from political machinations. We must, therefore, 
think of the prophetic party as poHtical in their method and 
aims. This is plainly the view of our documents, for at Horeb, 

1 I Kings, 18. 

2 The prophet boldly confronted Ahab in the act of taking possession of 
his plunder and denounced his punishment as was noticed above. The dif- 
ficulty the narrator found in making the events fulfil the prophecy is evidence 
of the genuineness of the prediction. He was obliged to assume that the 
fulfilment was postponed by Ahab's repentance, or to see a meagre accom- 
plishment in the blood washed from the king's chariot. 



FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU IQS 

where Elijah has fled for intimate communion with Yahweh, he 
receives the command to do — what? To anoint Jehu king over 
Israel, and Hazael king over Damascus, that is, to foment rebell- 
ion in both the kingdoms concerned. The injunction as it 
has come down to us is, indeed, a reflection of the actual course 
of history as seen by the later writer. But it is probably true to 
the facts in its conception of the prophetic programme and 
methods. Elisha, the intimate friend and disciple of Elijah, did 
encourage Jehu's rebellion, and we hear of no one who con- 
demned the new king's drastic and cruel measures. The party 
of Elijah, therefore, was not made up of harmless religious enthu- 
siasts. The proplietic guilds, of which we now hear again after a 
long interval, were hotbeds of sedition as well as homes of the 
contemplative life.^ 

Were they homes of the contemplative life? Probably not. 
We understand under this term the quietism of the mystics. Con- 
vents of dervishes exist for stimulation of the religious emotions. 
These emotions easily become fanaticism. Too often, under the 
conviction of possessing the special favour of God, the members 
of these societies set themselves above the law, and plot the over- 
throw of dynasties. Their temper in the days of Ahab is made 
evident from an incident that has come down to us. In the 
course of the Syrian wars, Benhadad fell into the power of Ahab, 
and an honourable peace was concluded between them. A mem- 
ber of the prophetic order disguised himself as a soldier, and when 
the king went by called for justice. When allowed to state his 
case he pretended that he had been entrusted with a prisoner 
whom he had carelessly allowed to escape, so that the man for 
whom he had the prisoner in charge was now threatening his life. 
The king's decision was that the life was indeed forfeit, and this 
decision the prophet hastened to turn against the king himself.^ 
The party of no compromise has never more completely revealed 
itself. In this case their policy of '' thorough " could have no 
result except to embitter the feeling between the two nations. 
Political wisdom had no part in their programme. Their watch- 
word was war to the knife against all foreigners, and the rigidity 
of their logic was proof against all considerations of expediency. 

^ On the prophetic guilds and Nazirites, cf. W. R. Smith, The Prophets 
of Israel,"^ p. 84flF. 
2 I Kings, 20 35-43 



194 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

The rank and file of the party doubtless show its worst features. 
Elijah appeals to us by the courage with which he contended 
against enormous odds. He was taken away before the coming 
of the revolution which he planned. We may be allowed to 
doubt whether he would have been satisfied with the way in which 
his party secured their triumph.^ The later prophets did not hesi- 
tate to pronounce severe judgment on the bloodshed by which 
Jehu secured the throne. 

In looking around for further light on the period now under 
review, we are at first inclined to make use of the memoirs of Eli- 
sha. But close consideration shows that they are, in large part, 
simply a duplication of those of Elijah. Historical material can 
scarcely be extracted from them. But from other sources we 
discover that events were preparing for Israel in a region of 
which Israel had little knowledge, and as yet no fear. The 
great kingdom of Assyria began now to threaten the coast-lands 
of the Mediterranean. We have already had occasion to notice 
the hold which Babylon had on Palestine in a very early time. 
During the period of the Hebrew invasion and conquest, the king- 
doms of the Euphrates valley were busy elsewhere. Babylon had 
now taken the second place, having yielded to the greater vigour 
of Assyria, its northern neighbour, whose capital was Nineveh. 
Assyria, in the reign of Omri, was showing new strength, and 
beginning to turn its attention to the west. Asshurnazirpal (b.c. 
884-860) is described as the conqueror of the region from the 
Tigris to the Lebanon and the Great Sea. He himself boasts of 
an expedition in which he climbed the Lebanon, cleansed his 
weapons in the Great Sea, and received the tribute of Tyre and 
Sidon, with other cities of the region.^ Israel seems to have lain 
outside the sphere of influence thus secured, though one would think 
that the experience of so near a neighbour as Tyre would have a 
lesson for the most thoughtless. The next Assyrian king, Shal- 
maneser II, came into contact with Ahab at the battle of 
Karkar, in northern Syria. Here the kingdoms of Syria and 
Palestine were united to resist the Assyrian advance. According 
to the inscriptions, the allied forces included twelve hundred 

* An interesting article on Elijah (by Gunkel) may be found in the Preus- 
sische Jahrbiicher iox 1897, pp. 1 8-5 1. 

2 Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, pp. 95, 109. No Assyrian king had come 
SO far to the west since Tiglath-pileser I, more than a hundred years earlier. 



FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 195 

chariots, twelve hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen 
of Hadadezer of Damascus, while Ahab is credited with two thou- 
sand chariots and ten thousand men/ The number of chariots 
seems incredible, but the Assyrian may exaggerate for his own 
glory. He claims a complete victory, but it is possible the re- 
sult was so indecisive that the allies could deceive themselves into 
thinking they had warded off any immediate danger. 

It has been supposed that Ahab sent his troops to Karkar as a 
vassal of Benhadad, in which case the battle must have preceded 
the defeat of Syria, and the treaty between the two kings already 
narrated. It is difficult to suppose, however, that Benhadad 
could compel the attendance of such an army as is ascribed to 
Ahab by the Assyrian inscription. It seems more probable that 
the treaty made between the two powers was an alliance, offensive 
and defensive, against the Assyrian. It must be admitted that 
few men in Israel were so far-sighted as to apprehend danger 
from the Euphrates kingdom. But Ahab seems to have had un- 
usual political wisdom, and the fact that Tyre had been obliged 
to make concessions to the invaders was likely (owing to his inti- 
macy with that city) to make a strong impression upon him. Jt 
can hardly be called unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that 
Ahab was the moving spirit in the alliance. After Karkar, Ben- 
hadad seems to have made some sort of arrangement with Assyria 
that left him free to carry on the old feud with Israel. 

The bone of contention was Ramoth Gilead, a fortified town 
to which Israel had a title, but which Syria had in possession. 
Ahab had as his ally Jehoshaphat of Judah, his son-in-law. The 
council of state in which the two kings decided on the campaign 
is vividly described for us. The court prophets were unanimous 
in urging war. A certain Micaiah, who did not belong to their 
number, had a more gloomy outlook, but his prediction did not 
make any change in the king's determination. The reputation 
of Ahab for courage and ability is indicated by the orders given 
to the Syrian army — namely to make him the special object of 
attack. In the hope of avoiding his fate, the king disguised him- 
self before going into battle. But a chance arrow found a vul- 
nerable spot, and he met his death bravely fighting against the 

^ The detailed enumeration is given on the great monolith of Shalmaneser 
(Keilinschr. Bibliothek, I, p. 173). An annalistic inscription of the king 
dates the battle in the sixth year of his reign, that is, B.C. 854 {ibid., p 133 f) 



196 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

enemies of Israel. Disdaining to turn his back to the foe, he 
had his attendants support him in his chariot so long as the fight- 
ing continued. At sunset he died, and the body was brought 
home to Samaria for burial. 

Ahab's son, Ahaziah, died after a short reign and was suc- 
ceeded by his brother Joram. It was perhaps during his reign 
that the Syrians again besieged Samaria and reduced it to fam- 
ine. The siege was lifted so suddenly that the Hebrews could 
only suppose a special intervention of divine power. The camp 
of the besiegers was found deserted, and their track was marked 
by the weapons and accoutrements which they had thrown away 
in their hasty retreat. The most natural hypothesis seemed to 
be that a panic had fallen upon them in which they heard the 
noise of an invading army; that they leaped to the conclusion 
that the Israelites had secured the help of the Hittites and Mu- 
9rites. As a matter of fact the retreat had another reason. A 
new Assyrian invasion threatened Damascus, and to meet this, all 
available forces must be gathered as soon as possible at the capital. 

A renewed endeavour to regain Ramoth Gilead was made, 
while the Syrians were thus kept busy at home. In this cam- 
paign Joram was wounded, and was obliged to return to Jezreel. 
While there convalescing he was visited by his nephew Ahaziah, 
of Judah. The siege was continued under the direction of Jehu 
ben Nimshi, the general of the army. 

The chronicle of petty wars is not complete without mention 
of the Moabite revolt. This nation (or tribe) which had been 
subdued by David had regained its independence under some of 
the later kings, but was again subdued by the energy of Omri.* 
It paid tribute to Omri and Ahab, but after Ahab's death (it 
would seem) it again revolted. From the confused account of 
the Hebrew text, we gather that Israel and Judah in conjunction 
invaded the country and besieged the capital. So great was the 
extremity that the Moabite king offered his first-born son as a 
sacrifice to his god. A reverse or calamity of some kind falling 
upon Israel soon after was regarded by both parties as a proof of 
the efficacy of the sacrifice, and Israel retreated from the land. 
Mesha, the hero of this incident, has left on record a testimonial 
to the help of Chemosh the national divinity. In this he con- 

^ It is possible that the poetical fragments now preserved in Num. 
21^*'-' 2^"^" commemorate the wars of Omri. 



FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 197 

fesses that Omri oppressed Israel a long time, ''for Chemosh 
was angry with his land." The period of subjection is reckoned 
at forty years.^ After its expiration Chemosh was again gracious, 
and with his help Moab threw off the oppressor's yoke. Mesha 
was able to carry the war into the enemy's country and conquer 
many of the cities of Israel. Some of these cities were " de- 
voted " to Chemosh, and the god was permitted to feast his eyes 
upon the extermination of their inhabitants. This vivid state- 
ment from the hand of the chief actor in the tragedy reveals 
a state of things which the Hebrew historian prefers to pass over 
in silence. 

Concerning Jehoshaphat the King of Judah, whose reign was 
for the most part contemporaneous with that of Ahab, there is 
little to say. The Hebrew historian commends him on the 
ground that he followed the example of Asa, his father.^ This 
must mean that he reformed the cultus, and in fact it is added 
that he completed the purgation of the Temple by removing the 
remnant of the Temple prostitutes (^Kedeshini). Beyond this, 
the historian seems to know of the king's wars, though he does 
not relate them. He tells that Edom was subject, and that the 
king attempted to revive the Red Sea commerce, but without 
success. The earliest of our Hebrew sources seems not to have 
judged Jehoshaphat harshly for his alliance with Ahab — an alli- 
ance that was cemented by the marriage of the Judaite crown 
prince with Athaliah, Ahab's daughter. In this writer's eyes 
(we may conclude), Ahab was not an apostate from Yahweh. 

The successors of Jehoshaphat are of no importance to the his- 
tory. In the reign of Jehoram, Edom made its revolt good, and 
Libnah, a fortified town on the border, went over to the Philis- 
tines. Ahaziah, who came next to the throne, reigned but one 
year, and was then involved in the catastrophe which overtook 
the house of Omri. 

^ The number is wholly inconsistent with the data of the Hebrew text. 
The combined reigns of Omri and Ahab here cover thirty-four years. Mesha 
evidently makes the oppression begin after the accession of Omri, and end 
about the middle of Ahab's reign. Cf. the article "Chronology" in the 
Encycl. Bib., I, p. 792, note, where a somewhat different translation is pro- 
posed. Cf. also Paton, Early History of Syria, p. 216, and Die Inschrift 
des Konig's Mesa by Smend and Socin. 

' I Kings, 22 *^. The Greek version inserts the paragraph, vv.'*'-^^ after 
16 ■•'^ because it makes the accession of Jehoshaphat precede that of Ahab. 



CHAPTER XI 

THE HOUSE OF JEHU 

Ramoth Gilead^ was still in question between the two king- 
doms of Syria and Israel. Joram ^ ben Ahab had again besieged 
it, and when compelled by his wounds to retire to Jezreel, he 
left Jehu, his general, to carry on the siege. Some indications 
there are that the work was nearly done ; perhaps the town itself 
was in the hands of Israel, the citadel alone remaining stubborn. 
The general was one day seated in council with his officers, when 
a young man, bearing the marks of travel, and labouring under 
the mental excitement that marked the members of the prophetic 
guild, entered the room. In response to his cry, ''I have busi- 
ness for thee, O General ! ' ' Jehu asked which of them was 
meant, and, on being assured that he was the one concerned, took 
the young man into his private apartment. Without delay, the 
newcomer poured oil upon the head of the officer, with the 
declaration: ''Thus saith Yahweh, God of Israel; I have 
anointed thee king over the people of Yahweh, over Israel." He 
then rushed out of the house and disappeared as suddenly as he 
had come.^ 

Jehu, interrogated by his comrades as to the errand of ''this 
crazy fellow," attempted to pass it off as a mad freak only, but 
when pressed, he related what had actually taken place. The 
enthusiasm of the army for its general readily took up the cry, 
Jehu is king ; a rude throne was extemporised at the head of a 
staircase, the trumpet was blown, and the new king received the 
congratulations and the allegiance of his soldiers. The energy 

' This is the form of the name in the received Hebrew text ; Ramatk 
Gilead would be the more natural vocalisation. The locality is not yet cer- 
tainly identified. 

2 The Hebrew text gives sometimes the longer form, Jehoram, and some- 
times the shorter form, Joram, for the son of Jehoshaphat and also for the 
son of Ahab. I have retained one form for each monarch. 

^ 2 Kings, 9 ^-^. The verses which follow, and which command the exter- 
mination of Ahab's house, are a later expansion. 

198 



THE HOUSE OF JEHU I99 

which had already made him famous marked him as the right 
man to head a revolution. That it was no sudden freak of a 
half-crazy journeyman prophet which put him on the throne we 
may well imagine. Tradition itself makes him to have been Eli- 
jah's candidate for the throne. Elisha's disciple did but fire a 
train that had long been laid by the party opposed to the house 
of Omri. The disability of the actual occupant of the throne 
gave opportunity for striking a long-meditated blow. 

Jehu's character comes to view in the prompt measures he took 
to secure the throne. He first arranged that no news of the event 
should precede him.^ With a small band of picked horsemen he 
then set out himself for Jezreel. All depended upon overpower- 
ing the wounded king before any force could be rallied to his 
support. Joram was informed by the watchman of the approaching 
troop, and sent out to know what it meant. But the messengers 
were not allowed to return. UnwiUing to believe the worst, though 
evidently suspecting it, the king, with his nephew of Judah, drove 
out to meet the usurper. They met him near the vineyard whose 
possession had been fatal to Naboth. Ascertaining that it was in- 
deed rebellion which they had to meet, the two kings turned to 
flee. But Jehu, with his own bow, sent an arrow into the heart of 
his sovereign. The king of Judah turned into the highway which 
led southward to En-gannim, hoping (if he had any definite hope) 
to escape to his own territory. He was followed by some of the 
soldiers and wounded. Finding the road to the south closed 
against him, he turned westward to Megiddo, and there died.^ 

Jehu had not followed Ahaziah, but, giving command to his 
adjutant to throw the body of Joram into the vineyard of Na- 
both, he himself proceeded to secure the palace. Jezebel, as 
queen-mother, had continued to rule the kingdom after the death 
ofAhab. Her death was even more necessary than the death of 
her son. She was not ignorant of what was going on and was 
doubtless aware that the hearts of the people were estranged from 
her. Nothing Avas left her except to meet death as a queen should 

' " Let no fugitive go out of the city " (2 Kings, 9 ^5) is an indication that 
the town, or at least a part of it, was in possession of the Israelites. 

2 This account assumes that Beth Haggan, of 2 Kings, g^', is identical 
with En-gannim. The Ascent of Gur, where Ahaziah was overtaken, has 
not been identified, but Ibleam, near which it is placed, lies a little south 
of Engannim. 



200 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

meet it. So she arrayed herself in her royal robes, and from a 
window that commanded the palace gate, saluted the entering 
enemy. ^' Hail, thou Zimri, thou assassin ! " was the cry that 
uttered all her scorn. Jehu could only reply : ^ " Who are you, 
to bandy words with me ? " Then, as he saw the servants near 
her, he commanded them to pitch her headlong from the win- 
dow. None seemed able to resist his will, and the eunuchs threw 
her down. Her blood spattered the wall, and her body was man- 
gled by the hoofs of the plunging horses. Such was the end of 
the imperious Jezebel, daughter of kings, wife of a king, mother 
of kings. Her unscrupulous acts brought destruction upon her- 
self and upon her children, but we can hardly refuse our tribute 
of admiration to the right royal way in which she met her fate. 

According to our sources, the fulfilment of Elijah's prophecies 
against Jezebel and the house of Ahab was strikingly evident to 
Jehu himself. The new king probably regarded himself as the 
predestined instrument of the divine vengeance, having been pre- 
pared for his work by the prophetic preaching. There can be 
no doubt that he took himself seriously in the role thus assigned 
him. At his instigation the male members of the house of Ahab 
were mercilessly slaughtered at Samaria. The princes of Judah 
who were within his reach were also slain, probably because of 
their connexion with Ahab — the two houses were allied by mar- 
riage as we have just seen. The details of the massacre may be 
read in the Biblical narrative. Jehu's relations with the party of 
Old Israel are indicated by the account of his friendship with 
Jonadab ben Rechab. 

The suppression of the worship of the Tyrian Baal was natu- 
rally one of the first steps taken by Jehu. One account describes 
the stratagem by which this was accomplished. It narrates how 
Jehu himself pretended to be a worshipper of Baal, and pro- 
claimed a great feast to him at Samaria. The Temple area was 
filled with worshippers, and the sacred vestments were distributed 
to them all. Jehu offered the sacrifice with his own hands, and 
then the executioners were turned loose on the defenceless throng, 
and cut them down in cold blood to the last man. The sequel 
was the demolition of the sanctuary and the effective desecration 
of its site. The account can hardly be taken literally — it is a 
dramatic idealisation of what actually took place. Jehu could 
*2 Kings, 9 '2. Correct the text with Benzinger, Handkommentar, p. 152. 



THE HOUSE OF JEHU 201 

not, with any hope of success, take the part of a worshipper of 
Baal. He was known as the organ of the prophetic party ; he 
had allied himself with the zealots too ostentatiously to play the 
hypocrite with any hope of success. His very insistence that 
Ahab served Baal little^ but Jehu will serve hhn tnuch would 
arouse the suspicions of the Baal party. But, though we 
cannot suppose such an artifice likely to be successful, we must 
believe that Jehu did put down the worship fostered by Jezebel, 
and that he put it down with a strong hand. 

Jehu is mentioned by the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser II, as 
paying him tribute, along with the Tyrians and Sidonians. The 
Israelite king is called So?i of Omri, which indicates that the rev- 
olution had not come to the knowledge of the court of Nineveh. 
This can hardly excite wonder in view of Israel's remoteness and 
insignificance. It is, perhaps, noteworthy that the tribute is 
spoken of in connexion with the invasion of Damascus, then 
under the rule of Hazael. The Assyrians claim to have defeated 
the opposing army at Saniru, in the Lebanon,^ and to have shut 
Hazael in Damascus, whose environs they laid waste. From the 
fact that they did not take the capital we may conclude that the 
expedition was only partially successful. The tribute sent by 
Jehu may have been intended to secure Assyrian help against 
Hazael. In any case it created a dangerous precedent. The 
Assyrian king would regard it as a recognition of his overlordship. 
We may hold, also, that it was ineffectual in obtaining the help 
needed. Hazael was able to preserve his capital, and as soon as 
the Assyrian army was recalled, his hands were free to take ven- 
geance upon his neighbours, and to recoup his losses by plundering 
their territory. From this point of view we may interpret the dec- 
laration of the Hebrew historian : ''In those days Yahweh began 
to rage against Israel, and Hazael smote them — all the borders 
of Israel." The prophetic legend also throws light upon this 
period, when it makes Hazael a truculent enemy of Israel, who 
burned their fortresses, slew their young men, dashed the children 
against the wall, and ripped up the pregnant women.'^ Amos 

^ The name reminds us of Senir, one of the names for Hermon, Dt. 3 ', or 
some part of the Antilebanon, i Chr. 5 2^, Ezek. 27^, Cant. 4^. The As- 
syrian account is given in Keilinschr. Bibliothek, I, pp. 141-143. 

2 The detailed prediction of Hazael's cruelty is put into the mouth of Elisha, 
2 Kings, 8^2^ jjie verse quoted above about Yahweh's rage is 2 Kings, 10^^ 



202 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

looks back on this time of guerilla warfare when he denounces 
Damascus for threshing Gilead with iron threshing-sledges. The 
misery in Israel must have been extreme. 

The mention of Jehu in the Assyrian inscriptions brings to our 
notice the chronological difficulties of the Hebrew record. Shal- 
maneser dates the battle of Karkar, at which Ahab was present, 
in the sixth year of his reign, and he received the tribute of Jehu 
in the eighteenth. Within the interval of twelve years we must 
find room for the two reigns between Ahab and Jehu. The Bibli- 
cal data for these two reigns sum up fourteen years. The contra- 
diction is obvious. On the theory that the Hebrew author 
counted fractions of years as full years, we might suppose that 
Ahaziah's two years only completed the year of his father's death 
and began the next, in which case his accession would fall in the 
year 853 b.c. But it is difficult to suppose that the campaign 
of Ramoth Gilead, in which Ahab lost his life, took place the 
same year with the severe losses of the battle of Karkar. In any 
case, the tribute of Jehu must have been sent soon after his acces- 
sion. The year of his revolt would, therefore, be the year in 
which Shalmaneser mentions the tribute — 842 b.c.^ This may 
be regarded as the earliest date that we can fix with any consid- 
erable certainty in the history of Israel. From here we can reckon 
backward to the death of Solomon, which would occur about 930, 
and the accession of David would fall not far from the year 1000 
B.C. But, until new sources are open to us, these figures can be 
only approximate.^ 

(emended text). To understand Amos' language (Amos, i ^) we must remem- 
ber that the oriental threshing-sledge grinds the straw to bits, cf. Is. 41 ^K 

^ The inaccuracy of the Biblical numbers becomes more glaring, if we sup- 
pose, with Cheyne {Encycl. Bibl., I, p. 92), that the defeat at Karkar fell in 
the three years' peace between Syria and Israel. On the whole subject the 
reader may consult the articles on "Chronology" in \\2,'=A\x\^%'' Dictionary 
of the Bible, and in the Encycl. Biblica. 

^ Some sarcasm has been expended upon the scholars who are so anxious 
to convict the Biblical authors of error, while accepting the Assyrian state- 
ments without reserve. The case is very simple; the Assyrians had a regu- 
lated chronology and dated their documents by it. The Hebrews did not 
have such a chronology, and the data which have come down to us are incon- 
sistent with each other, as well as with what we know from other sources. 
The most persistent attempts to defend the authenticity of the numbers in the 
books of Kings always end in hypotheses of textual corruption, or of omitted 
data — interregna or co-reigns — for which the text gives no warrant. 



THE HOUSE OF JEHU 203 

In the southern kingdom we find an interesting parallel to the 
rebellion of Jehu in the usurpation of Athaliah. This daughter 
of Ahab and Jezebel was now queen-mother, and therefore the 
most powerful person in the palace next to her son Ahaziah. 
Ahaziah, as we have seen, was murdered because of his relation- 
ship with Joram whom he was visiting in Jezreel. Other mem- 
bers of the royal family were visiting their cousins in Samaria 
and were included in the massacre that overtook the house of 
Ahab.^ We do not know who had the next right to the throne 
of Judah. But we do know that his accession would have super- 
seded the queen-mother, for to guard against losing her place 
she resolved on a step worthy of the daughter of Jezebel. So far 
as was in her power she completed the extermination of the house 
of David, and in default of any other claimant, herself ascended 
the throne. For six years she presented to Judah the unusual 
spectacle of a woman wielding the supreme power. 

The fall of the woman was made possible by the foresight of a 
woman. Jehosheba, sister of the late king (but hardly a daughter 
of Athaliah, we may suppose), saved her nephew Jehoash from 
the fate of his uncles, brothers, and cousins. Her ability to pro- 
tect him was given by the fact that she was wife of Jehoiada, the 
priest who had charge of the Temple. With her husband she 
seems to have had apartments within the sacred enclosure. Here 
the lad found an asylum until such time as he might be pro- 
claimed king. The priest thought it unsafe to wait longer than 
six years, at the expiration of which time the boy king was only 
seven years of age. 

Jehoiada' s dependence was on the royal body-guard. As we 
have already noticed, the Temple was in a separate court imme- 
diately adjoining the royal residence and was a part of the same 
group of buildings with it. The body-guard was organised in 
three divisions, an arrangement as old as the time of David. 
The standing order was that on week days two companies should 
be on duty in the palace and one in the Temple, but that on the 
Sabbath, when the Temple was most frequented, the proportion 
should be reversed. Moreover, on that day the posts were 
shifted ; the company that had been on duty at the Temple then 
took its station at the palace. Jehoiada having found means to 
secure the support of the officers, arranged that, on the particular 
^ They were forty-two in number according to 2 Kings, 10^*. 



204 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Sabbath which he fixed upon, the soldiers already in the Temple 
should be detained beyond the usual hour. The consequence 
was that on the arrival of the other two companies from the pal- 
ace, the whole band was united at the Temple, and the palace 
was left wholly without a guard. When this was accomplished, 
the young king was brought out, anointed, and crowned.^ The 
soldiers greeted him with acclamations, and taking him in the 
midst they marched to the palace. The death of the queen was 
the logical sequel. 

We have no means of knowing how far religious motives were 
active in this counter-revolution. It would be rather strange if 
religious motives were not active in it. The daughter of Jezebel 
may be suspected of being an innovator like her mother. In this 
case the hands of Jehoiada were strengthened by the conserva- 
tives. But on the face of it the account shows only an ordinary 
palace revolution. The statements concerning the destruction 
of a temple of Baal, and concerning a covenant with Yahweh 
entered into by the king and people, are later insertions into the 
text.=* 

The lad upon whom greatness was thus thrust had a lively 
sense of gratitude toward his guardian, and we may well suppose 
that Jehoiada was the virtual ruler for many years. The paucity 
of our information concerning matters of state, however, con- 
tinues throughout this period. All that the historian has thought 
worthy of preservation is an extract from the Temple history. 
This extract relates a dispute concerning the priests' responsibil- 
ity for the repair of the sanctuary. The matter is not entirely 
clear to us, but we may imagine something as follows: The 
Temple was the royal chapel. At first the Temple treasure was 
part of the king's property ; the income from gifts and fines be- 
longed to the monarch. When this was the case the priests, as 
royal officers, received their support from the palace. But the area 
of perquisite is constantly extending. The priests would easily 
claim that the offerings should belong to them as persons specially 

^ According to a plausible emendation of the text, he also received the 
royal bracelet — such we find among the insignia of Saul. On the composite 
nature of the account, 2 Kings, 1 1 ^-^^ see the commentaries of Kittel and 
Benzinger. 

2 This is pointed out by Stade, Zeitsch. f. d. A litest Wissensch.V, p. 283, f., 
and admitted by Kittel, though he thinks the difference of age not very great. 



THE HOUSE OF JEHU 205 

consecrated. Logically the fines which were imposed for neg- 
lected religious duties would follow the same course. If the 
animal that was vowed to the sanctuary belonged to the priests, 
the money which was received as its equivalent would equally 
belong to them. By the time of Jehoash a custom had become 
established which gave the priests a right to all these sources of 
income. At the same time, the priests felt no responsibility for 
the repair of the sanctuary — that belonged to the king. Jehoash 
was willing explicitly to sanction the custom, but in return for 
the legitimation besought to lay some responsibility on the party 
benefited. He allowed the priests to receive " the money of the 
sacred things," but stipulated that they should keep the House 
in repair. 

The result was what we might expect. The priests were willing 
to receive the money as their right, but the duty of repairing the 
house was still regarded by them as devolving on the royal treas- 
ury. After some friction between the two parties, a new arrange- 
ment was made. The money which was exacted in connexion 
with the trespass offerings and sin offerings was given to the 
priests without drawback. For what else came into the Temple 
treasury a special chest was provided. When a considerable 
amount had accumulated, the king's chancellor came and counted 
it, and provided for the repairs in question. This is not the only 
time that laymen have shown greater zeal and fidelity in sacred 
things than have the men to whom the responsibility would more 
naturally belong. As it was the twenty-third year of Jehoash 
when the neglected state of the Temple caused this discussion, 
its lack of repair can hardly be laid to the charge of Athaliah.^ 

The incident shows that Jehoash was able to release himself 
from his subserviency to Jehoiada. It shows also a tendency, 
which became more marked as time went on — the tendency of the 
Temple officers to organise as a close corporation, which should 
have revenues and privileges of its own. The rest of the acts of 
Jehoash are left unrecorded, except the forced contribution which 
he made to Hazael, king of Damascus. The Syrian was now at 
the height of his power. Shalmaneser had again invaded his 
territory, but without effectively weakening his resources.^ Since 

* 2 Kings, 12 *-i*. 

* In his twenty-first year he claims to have taken four cities from Hazael, 
Keilinsch. Biblwthek, I, p. 143. 



206 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

this time Shalmaneser had been kept at home by a rebellion 
there. His son Shamsiramman had to meet a general revolt of 
the provinces, and to reconquer a large part of his empire. It 
was not till the reign of the next king, Ramman-nirari III, 
that Damascus suffered from the Assyrian attack. Hazael had 
practically a free hand during his whole life, and he made 
use of his opportunity by pressing Israel to the wall. Even 
Judah was at his mercy, as is indicated by what has already 
been said.^ 

Turning now to the northern kingdom, we see the situation as 
it had been in the time of Jehu becoming worse under his son 
Jehoahaz. *'The wrath of Yahweh was hot against Israel, and 
he gave them into the hand of Hazael, king of Syria, and into 
the hand of Benhadad, his son."^ After an interpolation we 
read that the Syrian '-left to Jehoahaz only fifty horsemen, 
and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen ; for the king of 
Syria had destroyed them and made them like dust of the 
threshing." For the time being the triumph of Damascus was 
complete. 

The leaf was soon turned, but Jehoash did not live to see it. 
He was slain by a conspiracy of his officers. Just before his 
death another Jehoash had come to the throne in Samaria, and 
he was permitted to see some relief. The prophetic legend sets 
this before us in its anecdote of the end of Elisha. The aged 
prophet was on his death-bed when he was visited by the young 
king, who regarded him as the ''chariot of Israel and its horse- 
men." ^ The ruling passion roused the dying man, and he in- 
structed the king to shoot an arrow out of the window toward 
Damascus- -a type and promise of the deliverance to come. 
Three -victories were promised, and it is intimated that more 
might have been gained had only the king shown sufficient zeal in 
the cause of freedom. Damascus, in fact, had its hands full in 

^ 2 Kings, 12^^ ^ If Hazael was able to carry his arms successfully as far 
as Gath, and even to threaten Jerusalem, his power was greater than that of 
any of his predecessors. 

2 2 Kings, 13^. This Benhadad must be tlie king called Mari (Lord) in 
the Assyrian inscriptions ; according to these, he was obliged to pay an 
enormous tribute to Assyria; Keilinsch. Bibliothek, I, p. 191. 

^ " One blast upon his bugle-horn was worth ten thousand men" is the 
modern equivalent for this saying. We can readily suppose that Elisha had 
been the encourager of the royal house in the time of calamity. 



THE HOUSE OF JEHU 20/ 

another direction. Ramman-nirari was ready to enforce the 
slumbering Assyrian claims on the whole Mediterranean district. 
He invaded the west with an irresistible force. He boasts of 
bringing to his feet Tyre, Sidon, the land of Omri, Edom, Phi- 
listia — " the west land in all its extent." The special object of 
the expedition was Damascus, which had long-standing arrears. 
The city preferred not to risk a siege, and opened its gates to the 
invader. It was spared the horrors of sack, but its resources must 
have been heavily taxed to pay the tribute exacted.' The king- 
dom of Israel also paid tribute, but received an equivalent in the 
humiliation of its hereditary enemy. We may suppose that at 
this time Jehoash obtained the three promised victories, and re- 
covered some of the cities which Israel had lost. That he was 
able to restore the ancient boundaries of his kingdom is not in- 
dicated by the narrative. 

The relations of the two Israelite kingdoms at this date are 
vividly portrayed in the incident next narrated by the book of 
Kings. Jehoash of Judah had been succeeded by Amaziah, his 
son, an energetic prince who carried war into Edom. This prince 
took an important fortress called the Rock, which has sometimes 
been identified with Petra the capital — but this can hardly be cor- 
rect.^ Elated by his success the king sent a challenge to Jehoash 
of Israel. Cause of war there seems to have been none, unless 
Israel claimed the suzerainty over Judah .^ The good-natured 
contempt of Jehoash is indicated by his reply: ''The thistle 
sent to the cedar saying : Give thy daughter to my son to 
wife; but a wild beast trod down the thistle." Such an an- 
swer was little calculated to preserve the peace. The two httle 
kingdoms went to war, and the result justified the pride of Jeho- 
ash. Amaziah was defeated, and himself fell into the hands of 
the enemy. Either to give an example or to discourage asser- 
tions of independence, the victor broke down the wall of Jerusa- 

^ The king specifies 2,300 talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3,000 talents 
of copper, 5,000 of iron, besides stuffs, ivory furniture, and other property. 
Keilinsch. Bihliothek, I, p. 191. 

^ The rock of Kadesh has more claims, and is advocated by Cheyne. Edom 
had revolted from Judah in the time of Jehoram, as we saw above. 

^ The non-mention of Judah among the tributaries of Assyria when the 
more remote Edom is included in the list, would indicate that Judah was 
included in Israel. In this case Jehoash was making an effort for inde- 
pendence. 



208 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

lem and looted the Temple and palace. Hostages also were de- 
manded and granted, and carried back into Samaria.^ 

The increasing prosperity of Israel continued into the next 
reign — that of Jeroboam II. The Hebrew historian gives only 
a brief statement, but one that is sufficiently positive : '' He re- 
stored the territory of Israel from the Entrance of Hamath to the 
Sea of the Arabah." ^ If this be so, and if Judah were really 
tributary to Israel, Jeroboam had possession of the whole extent 
of Canaan. The continued debility of Damascus allowed Jero- 
boam thus to extend his rule, though we must accuse the Hebrew 
writer of exaggeration when he gives him possession both of Da- 
mascus and of Hamath.' 

The forty-one years of Jeroboam's reign are dismissed in seven 
verses of the Hebrew historian's text ; of which four are taken up 
with the standing formulae which are used at the beginning and 
end of each reign. The writer's lack of interest in what we call 
history could not be more conspicuously shown. All that we 
have is the bare mention of Jeroboam's success in war. Yet 
this success must have been purchased by a long and bloody con- 
flict, marked by many stirring incidents such as the memory of 
Israel would cherish with pride or pathos. If a plausible inter- 
pretation of a verse in Amos may be trusted, the inhabitants of 
Samaria were ready to boast of their success in the capture of 
Lodebar and Karnaim from the Syrian enemy.* Whatever fur- 
ther exploits of this kind there may have been are lost to us for- 
ever. The internal condition of the kingdom, however, has a 
strong light thrown upon it by the book of the prophet Amos. 
This remarkable man deserves our careful attention. 

It has already been shown that a prophetic party in opposition 

^The history of Amaziah (2 Kings, 14 1-^*) also mentions as a remarkable 
fact, that he did not slay the children of his father's assassins for the crime 
of their fathers. The story of the contest with Jehoash seems to come from 
a source unfriendly to Amaziah. 

^ 2 Kings, 14 ^^ The Entrance of Hamath was some town or fortress in 
the mouth of the valley which divides the two Lebanon ranges. The Sea of 
the Arabah is, of course, the Dead Sea. 

^ 2 Kings, 14 28. The verse is a part of the redactor's work, and as it 
stands is disfigured by an unintelligible reference to Judah. 

* Amos, 61^: " Who rejoice over Lodebar and who say: Have we not 
taken Karnaim by our own strength?" — the translation is attributed to 
Gratz by Wellhausen, Skizzen imd Vorarbetten, V, p. 86. Lodebar and 
Karnaim were towns in Gilead. 



THE HOUSE OF JEHU 2O9 

to the house of Omri had been led by Ehjah and afterward by 
EHsha. Their poHcy had been to overthrow the worship of the 
Tyrian Baal and to purge the religion of Yahweh of Canaanitish 
elements. Their success in putting Jehu upon the throne had 
only revealed the need of other reforms. Reflecting men, more- 
over, had learned that the cause of true religion was very little 
advanced by political measures. There were those who already 
hoped that the pen would prove mightier than the sword. A 
considerable literary activity developed in both kingdoms during 
the reign of Jehu and his successors. A part of this activity, if 
we may judge from the fragments that have come down to us, 
aimed to lead the thoughts of the people toward religious purifi- 
cation and improvement. 

We may put here the memoirs of Elijah himself. For it could 
not have been long after his death that his admirers put their 
opinions of him into written form. The legendary exaggerations 
of the narrative are precisely such as attach themselves to the 
life-story of a saint within a very few years after his death. The 
extravagant esteem in which the man of God is held in the East 
is here painted to the life. We see the hero able to announce 
the famine predetermined by Yahweh, and himself miraculously 
nourished during its continuance. At his prayer the dead son of 
his hostess is restored to life. With the courage of one who 
knows his God to be with him, he faces the king who has vowed 
his destruction. Single-handed he stands against the prophets of 
Baal and brings them to confusion by the fire which consumes 
his sacrifice. At the close of his life he is miraculously carried 
away by a fiery chariot, doubtless to enjoy the pleasures of the 
paradise of God/ In all this we discover a book of edification, 
designed to commend to the people the cause of which Elijah was 
the champion. The biography of Elisha is so similar that we 
must suppose it to have taken shape at about the same time. 

Far less political bias is shown by the poem which has come 
down to us under the title of The Blessing of Moses. ^ Here we 
see a lover of Israel describing the different tribes; praying that 
Judah may be brought into political unity with his brethren, 
praising the priesdy prerogatives of Levi, breaking out into rap- 

^ The life of Elijah and Elisha is one of the chief sources for the book of 
Kings, T Kings, 17-19, 21; 2 Kings, i-q. 
2 Inserted in Deuteronomy as Chapter ^^. 



2IO OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

tures over the friiitfulness of Joseph. The satisfaction of the 
poem with the present situation of Israel is in accord with the 
popular sentiment of the times. The author is not conscious of 
any breach between Israel and Yahweh, and assumes that the 
people are sure of the help of their God for all time to come. 
The confidence which is here expressed in noble form, was the 
very confidence that Amos was compelled to denounce. 

In this period also we may place that elaboration of ancestral 
tradition which we call the Yahwistic element of the Penta- 
teuch^ (J). The writer collects the scattered stories of the cre- 
ation, the deluge, the patriarchs and the exodus, and rewrites 
them in a connected narrative. His object, no doubt, is both 
literary and religious — he delights in putting the story into form 
for its own sake, but he is also anxious to teach a lesson. That 
lesson is the power of Yahweh and the favour which He has con- 
tinually shown to Israel. Yahweh is the Creator of the land of 
Canaan. It is He who has been worshipped from the time of 
Enoch. It is He who promised Abraham possession of the land, 
and to whom Abraham erected altars in his sojourning. The 
ancient sanctuaries are dwelt upon with loving interest as places 
consecrated by the Patriarchs. The sojourn in Egypt and the 
exodus are made to give renewed evidence of Yahweh's favour. 
The conclusion of the whole matter seems to be : Fear Yahweh 
and keep His commandments. By thus showing the people the 
reasons for their worship, the author hopes to persuade them to 
that fidelity which Elijah would enforce by sterner measures. 

What the author means by the service of Yahweh is revealed to 
us by his Decalogue, which we have already quoted.^ This dec- 
alogue is essentially ritual. It forbids the making of molten gods, 
in which prohibition we may see the beginning of a reaction 
against the bulls of Jeroboam I. It commands the observance of 
the religious festivals, which are also the agricultural festivals. 
The firstlings and first fruits are to belong to Yahweh. Leav- 
ened bread is not to be brought to the altar, and the supersti- 
tious rite of boiling a kid with its mother's milk is prohibited. 

' Cf. what was said above, pp. 12-15, 41-45- The book of J, like almost 
all Hebrew literature, went through various editions before being united with 
E. I assume that it was substantially complete in the present period, some 
little time before Amos. 

2 Above p. 68 f. The text of the Decalogue is taken from Ex. 34. 



THE HOUSE OF JEHU 211 

On the ground of such observances Yahweh made His covenant 
with Israel, and we can hardly help feeling that this author, with 
all his religious earnestness, encouraged the blindness against 
which Amos made such an energetic protest. Conscious opposi- 
tion to the popular religion can scarcel]' be attributed to J. 

Very different was Amos : He was not a literary man, though 
his book begins a new stage in the literature of Israel. He was 
a prophet — not one of the professed prophets, members of the 
guilds, but a man on fire with a message. A native of Judah, 
and a herdsman by occupation, he had felt the divine impulse, 
and left his herds and home to preach to Israel. The burden of 
his message was impending calamity. He saw that the long- 
suffering of Yahweh was exhausted. Twice had the judgment 
seemed about to fall, and twice it had been mercifully restrained. 
But now, this third time, Yahweh was testing Israel as one tests 
a wall with the plumb-line. The result could not be doubtful — 
Israel fell so far short of the requirements that judgment was sure 
to come : " The high places of Isaac shall be destroyed, and the 
sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste, and I will stand against 
the house of Jeroboam with the sword." ^ 

With such a message, the prophet appeared at the ancient 
sanctuary of Bethel. The time was probably one of the stated 
festivals when the people were assembled in numbers. The presi- 
ding priest, as we should expect, saw treason in the denunciation 
of the reigning monarch. The activity of the prophetic order 
against the house of Omri was not forgotten. The royal official 
saw in Amos one of the wandering dervishes who went through 
the land raving out incoherent messages, expecting to receive his 
support at the hands of pious or superstitious citizens. He there- 
fore gave information to the king, at the same time warning 
Amos that he would better ply his trade in Judah. But the 
preacher denies that he is a prophet by trade. All his life he had 
been a herdsman and a gatherer of sycamore figs. Just now he 
has a message from Yahweh — " when the lion roars who will not 
fear, when Yahweh speaks who will not prophesy?" Yahweh 

* Amos, 7^. It seems not too daring to assume that this vision of the lo- 
custs, the fire, and the plummet was the opening of Amos's activity. The 
parallel cases of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel make this probable, and 
there is no reason to suppose that the discourses were written down in the 
order of their delivery. 



212 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

had spoken, and the content of his message was : *' Israel is ripe 
for destruction." ^ 

So much information is given us by the prophet concerning 
himself. His book makes the impression of an activity extended 
over some time. We have reason to be grateful that he put the 
outline of his discourses into written form. The message he has 
recorded is a very simple one. It may be summed up in the 
words : Israel is to be destroyed for its disobedience to Yahweh. 
And we are not left in doubt as to the method of destruction. 
War, with its concomitant horrors of pestilence and famine, is to 
come upon the country. The cities are to be sacked, the men 
are to be slain, the women and children are to go into captivity. 
As we may judge from what we have seen of literature in the pe- 
riod, this was a new sort of preaching to be delivered in the name 
of Yahweh. The people at large identified the cause of Yahweh 
and the cause of Israel. They could not conceive that He would 
deliver His people over to the enemy — what would become of 
Yahweh Himself? This is the question which the astonished 
hearers would put to the preacher. 

The wrath of Yahweh was not, indeed, an unknown thing. 
At different times in the past He had been offended with His 
people ; on occasion He had, for a while, left them to themselves, 
or even actively taken part against them. They had suffered de- 
feat, oppression, visitations of various kinds. But sooner or later 
He had been appeased. He had always come to realise that they 
were His people ; had turned to them, and had intervened for 
their deliverance. Yahweh was a man of war. There had always 
been a Day of Yahweh in which He had gone out at the head of 
His people, and had smitten their enemies. These days of vic- 
tory were only precursors of a still greater Day of Yahweh in 
which He would again, and finally, vindicate them against every 
opposer. 

This was the substance of the popular theology. It was evi- 
dently based upon the covenant relation so dear to the current 
tradition. It interpreted recent history in the light of this tra- 
dition and of its own desires. The defeat of the Syrians and 
the renewed prosperity of Israel were acts of God, evidences that 

^ Amos, 8 ^ *'. The vision of the ripe fruit gives us one of those plays upon 
words of which the prophets were fond. Amos sees a basket of ripe fruit 
{Kai() and is told that the end (AVf) has come upon Israel 



THE HOUSE OF JEHU 21 3 

He was favourable to His land. How could it be otherwise? 
He Himself partook of the prosperity. His altars were now 
abundantly provided with sacrifices. The great festivals were 
celebrated more lavishly than ever before ; the fat of fed beasts 
ascended continually to His grateful nostrils ; tithes and free- 
will offerings were brought generously to His sanctuaries. The 
people could not conceive of anything more harmonious than 
their relation to their God, and they found every reason to hope 
in His continued approbation. 

Against this whole structure of confidence Amos threw himself 
with an earnestness that may be called desperate. First of all, 
he took a broader view of Yahweh. Yahweh was to him much 
more than the God of Israel — He was the God of the nations. 
He had, indeed, brought Israel from Egypt, but He had also 
brought the Philistines from Cayjhtor, and the Syrians from Kir. 
One passage goes so far as to affirm that Nubians and Israelites 
were alike in His estimation. Yet this seems more than the sober 
reflection of the prophet would assert, for he does, in fact, recog- 
nise that Israel's relation to Yahweh is in some sense peculiar. 
But this rather increases the seriousness of the situation. Yah- 
weh's choice of Israel has brought upon Israel greater responsi- 
bility : " You only have I known of all the families of the earth, 
therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities. ' ' ^ The intimate 
relation between Yahweh and Israel is a reason why He should 
be more strict with them ; their nearness made it impossible for 
Him to overlook their deficiencies. 

The all-important question, therefore, is whether Israel has 
in fact obeyed the will of Yahweh. To this question Amos an- 
swers with an unequivocal No ! And the answer is based upon 
two propositions. The first is that what Yahweh desires is not the 
cultus. It is irrelevant to the question between Him and His 
people. If men crowd the great sanctuaries bringing their offer- 
ings and tithes; if they sacrifice their thank-offerings and loudly 
invite guests to partake of their free-will offerings, it is because 
they love to have it so — not because He commands it. ''I hate, 
I reject, your feasts, and I find no fragrance in your solemn as- 
semblies ; when you bring burnt-offerings I am not pleased, and 
I will not look upon your rich peace-offerings ; remove from me 

* Chapter 3'. The declaration concerning Philistines, Syrians, and Nu- 
bians is found in 9 '. 



214 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

the noise of your songs ; I do not listen to the music of your 
harps. " ^ So true is this in the mind of the prophet that he does 
not hesitate to appeal to history: '' Was it sacrifices and offer- 
ings that you brought me in the Wilderness forty years, O House 
of Israel ? ' ' The emphatic question certainly requires a nega- 
tive answer.^ It shows the same conception of history which we 
find in both Hosea and Jeremiah, according to which the wilder- 
ness wandering was a time when no sacrifices were brought. And 
yet it was a time of undisturbed affection between Yahweh and 
His people. The conclusion is plain — the luxuriant worship on 
which the people rely as their security can have no real effect 
upon the mind of Yahweh. He is estranged, and if there is 
nothing done except to continue the elaborate ritual He will 
remain estranged from Israel. 

So far the negative side. Now comes the affirmation of the real 
reason ; the anger of Yahweh was roused because of the moral cor- 
ruption of His people. Their outward prosperity had been ap- 
propriated by the leaders, and had not been allowed to reach the 
common people. The nobles and governors had no regard for 
their poorer brethren. Oppression and extortion were the order 
of the day. The wealthy landowners in selling the necessities of 
life, exacted the utmost that the traffic would bear. The middle- 
men cheated both in the measure and in the quality of the grain. 
The nobles sold justice to the highest bidder. And while the 
poor were thus ground down, the rich dissipated their lives in 
feasting.' The feasting was, to be sure, carried on in the name of 
religion. But it was none the better for that. The altar by 
whose side the upper classes drank themselves drunk, could exer- 
cise no purifying influence on such worshippers. The very gar- 
ments on which the feasters lay witnessed against them, for they 
were garments of the poor, taken as pledges of usurious loans. 
The worship itself was infected — could drunkenness, gormandis- 
ing, fornication, constitute the service of Yahweh ? 

Most fatal of all, perhaps, was the blindness which refused to 
see that calamity was impending : " Woe to them that are at 

1 Chapter 5 21 f, cf. 4 * ^ 

2 I am aware of Professor Macdonald's ingenious discussion of this verse 
(5^^^). Journ, of Bib. Lit. (1899), p. 214 f. But I still think the above the 
most natural translation. The next following verse (5 2^) apparently once 
contained a similar question, cf. Schmidt, ibid. (1894), pp. 1-15. 



THE HOUSE OF JEHU 215 

ease in Zion, and secure in the mountain of Samaria . . 
who put the evil day far away and yet bring near the regime of 
violence ; who lie on couches of ivory, and stretch themselves on 
their beds ; who eat lambs of the flock and calves from the stall ; 
who thrum on the harp and improvise songs like David ; who 
drink bumpers of wine and anoint themselves with the choicest 
perfume — but they are not grieved at the impending doom of 
Joseph''^ To arouse the people thus in false security is the first 
duty of the prophet. 

Amos' s standard of right and wrong is not applied to Israel 
alone. This is strikingly brought out by the first discourse in die 
book — which is also the most finished specimen of his oratory. 
From it we' learn that Yahweh is offended by the sins of other 
nations, and that they are to suffer as well as Israel. The sins of 
which they are accused, however, are not sins of religion. There 
is no accusation of idolatry or polytheism, as though they had 
apostatised after receiving a primitive revelation of the true God. 
Their crime is violation of the common dictates of humanity. 
Damascus has threshed Gilead with iron threshing-sledges, grind- 
ing it down with perpetual warfare. Gaza has engaged in the 
slave trade, selling men in herds to the Arabian markets. Am- 
mon has ripped up the pregnant women of Gilead in the wanton 
cruelty of its raids, and in the ambition of mere territorial exten- 
sion. Moab has violated natural sentiment in burning the bones of 
the King of Edom to lime. A threefold, yes, fourfold, burden of 
guilt rests upon all these nations, and it is too late for a reprieve. 

We can imagine the inner satisfaction with which the hearers, 
up to this point of the discourse, listened to Amos's denunciations. 
Damascus, Philistia, Amnion, Moab, these were their hereditary 
enemies. It could be only a gratification to learn that the wrath 
of Yahweh was kindled against them, and that their punishment 
was certain. But what must have been their revulsion of feeling 
when at the climax of the discourse, Israel was attacked in terms 
more scathing than those which had been employed for any of 
the others ; when it appeared that Damascus and the others had 
been mentioned only to prepare the way for the rebuke of the 
chosen people ! 

* Amos, 6 *-*. I have omitted one obscure clause, as well as an interpola- 
ted verse. It is doubtful whether Zion is original in the opening clause — 
Ephraim or Israel is what we expect. 



2l6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

' ' Thus saith Yahweh : For the threefold, yes, fourfold, guilt 
of Israel I cannot hold back its sentence ; because they have 
sold the righteous for money, and the needy for a pair of shoes ; 
they crush the head of the poor into the dust, and thrust the 
lowly into the pit ; a man and his father go to the harlot ^ to 
profane my name; on garments taken in pledge they stretch 
themselves by the side of every altar ; wine extorted in fines they 
drink in the house of their God. Yet I destroyed before them 
the Amorite, tall as the cedars and strong as the oaks ; I de- 
stroyed their fruit above, and their roots beneath ; and I brought 
you up from Egypt and led you forty years in the Wilderness, 
to possess the Amorites' land ; and I raised up prophets of your 
sons and Nazirites of your young men — is not this true, Sons of 
Israel ? saith Yahweh. But you made the Nazirites drink wine, 
and connmanded the prophets not to prophesy. Behold, I will 
make the ground rock beneath your feet, as the wagon sways 
under its load of sheaves ; and flight shall be cut off from the 
swift, and the strong shall not show his strength, nor the warrior 
save his life." ' 

The old phrase, the Day of Yahweh, which Amos often heard 
from his contemporaries, received from him a new meaning in ac- 
cordance with this conception of the divine purpose. There was 
to be such a Day — a time of direct intervention in the affairs of 
men. But it would not be a day of deliverance. Those who 
dream of it as the dawn of a millennium are deceiving themselves. 
*' Alas for those who are longing for the Day of Yahweh ! What 
good is the Day of Yahweh to you ? It is darkness and not 
light — ^as if one should flee from a lion and meet a bear, or come 
into the house, and lean upon the wall and be bitten by a ser- 
pent. Is not the Day of Yahweh darkness instead of light, and 
gloomy without a single ray of brightness ? " ^ With this new in- 
terpretation of the Day, Amos opened the way to a long series 
of prophetic anticipations of a great Day of Judgment for the 
nations. 

The working of the prophetic soul which here reveals itself, is, 

1 The slave consecrated to impure rites at the sanctuary is intended. 

' Chapters i and 2 form a single discourse in strophical form. The latest 
study of it is by Lohr, UntersucJningen zum Buck Amos (1901). 

' Amos, 5 ^^-''°. For a recent discussion on the Day of Yahweh, the reader 
is referred to the .^w. Journal of Theol. for July, 1901. 



THE HOUSE OF JEHU 21/ 

in spite of the length of time by which it is separated from us, 
not only fully intelligible, but also sympathetic. To read history 
in the light of conscience is what all great thinkers have tried to 
do. The great fact which loomed up in Amos' political field of 
vision was the coming Assyrian invasion. The great world-power 
was like a black storm-cloud on the horizon. The common peo- 
ple or even the nobles might ignore it. They might suppose that 
with the humiliation of Damascus, the Great King had reached 
the limit of his power, and that they themselves were beyond 
the reach of his arm. Amos could not so judge. His ihtuition 
showed him that such a power is always extending its boundaries ; 
that the going on to new conquests is a condition of life to it ; 
that for it to stop advance is to bring on a crisis. I do not mean 
that the prophet distinctly formulated to himself a law of growth 
and decline of great empires. But he had a vague conception of 
such a law, and a very distinct conception of its concrete applica- 
tion in the case before him. Where Damascus, Tyre, Philistia 
had succumbed, it was not likely that Israel would escape. In the 
nature of things there was no reason why the Assyrian armies 
should spare Samaria. All that could save the people of Yahweh 
was a special intervention of Yahweh Himself. Had Israel any 
reason to hope for such a special intervention ? Amos in all 
honesty could find no such ground. An essential condition for 
intervention must be conformity to the will of Yahweh. But 
this was wliat was conspicuously lacking. Moral corruption, dis- 
obedience to the plain demands of conscience, man's inhuman- 
ity to man, deadness to moral issues — these were features of the 
situation that stared him in the face. Hence his almost despair- 
ing denunciation of punishment. Only once does he intimate 
the possibility that it is not too late : " Hate evil and love good, 
and establish justice in the gate; perchance Yahweh, God of 
Israel, may pity the remnant of Joseph."^ Elsewhere he treats 
the doom of his people as certain. 

Pessimistic preachers rarely find a hearing. The preaching of 

^ Amos, 5 '. As the book now stands it concludes with a paragraph of en- 
couragement (9 ^^-^^). But this is by many critics held to be the work of a 
later hand. The passage as it stands concerns itself with things in which 
Amos elsewhere shows no special interest — the ruined house of David, Is- 
rael's possession of Edom, the replanting of the people on the land from 
which they have been pulled up. Of course it is possible that an original 
hope of Amos has here been expanded, but I see no evidence of it. 



21 8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Amos was a testimony against the vices of the times. On those 
who first heard it, it had Httle effect. All the more striking was 
its impression upon succeeding generations of preachers as well 
as readers. For our present purpose its value is in the light it 
throws upon the times of Jeroboam II. Making due allowance 
for the one-sided view which the prophet presents, we yet see 
that the reign so brilliant externally, was in no sense the be- 
ginning of a new era. Israel was socially and morally corrupt. 
The renewal of prosperity brought no renovation of the moral 
forces of the nation. Amos was right in his forecast of the fut- 
ure. The Assyrian storm-cloud was, in fact, gathering on the 
horizon. In a little while it must break upon Israel and must 
work complete destruction. 



CHAPTER XII 

THE FALL OF SAMARIA 

The reign of Jeroboam II showed the energy of the people, 
but it was the convulsive energy of a man in a fever. The reac- 
tion began with the death of the king, or even earlier. His son 
Zechariah came to the throne, but reigned only six months 
before his murder by Shallum. Shallum enjoyed the ill-gotten 
throne but one month before he was in turn murdered by Mena- 
hem, one of the generals. Civil war raged, and the ancient cap- 
ital, Tirzah, was besieged and sacked by Menahem.^ The reign 
of this king lasted ten years, but not without conflict, if we may 
judge from the fact that he bought the help of Tiglath-pileser by 
an enormous tribute. The period was, in fact, a period of an- 
archy. Before looking at it more closely, we must consider two 
literary monuments which belong in the closing years of Jero- 
boam II, or in the brief reigns which follow. 

The first of these is the work of the historian whom we have 
called E, who treated from his own point of view the same mate- 
rial used by J, and whose writing was afterward combined with 
that of his predecessor. We can readily understand how a gentle 
spirit may seek consolation for the sad state of things around 
him in contemplating earlier and happier generations. Our 
author is one of the earliest examples of those who thus seek 
consolation. That his purpose is also hortatory is evident ; he 
will hold up the examples of the Patriarchs and testify of the 
goodness of God to Israel. Ignoring the primeval history, he 
therefore begins with the call to Abraham. The Patriarch is 
presented as a prophet and intercessor, as well as the father of the 
chosen people. In contrast with the warlike aggression of later 
generations is the peaceful method in which Abraham obtains a 
foothold in the land, entering into covenant with the PhiHstines. 

In conscious or unconscious opposition to Amos, this author 
lays emphasis upon the ritual side of religion. The sanctuary at 

^2 Kings, 15^^, where Tirzah should probably be read instead of Tiphsah 
(Stade in the Zeitsch. f. d. A litest. Wissensck., VI, p. 159 f.). 

219 



220 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Bethel seems especially dear to l;im, for he relates, with evident 
interest, the story of its founding by Jacob. It is his view (as 
well as that of his hero) that here is the house of God and the 
gate of heaven. The ma^^eba set up by Jacob is still the sacred 
object in the sanctuary, and the vow of Jacob sets the precedent 
for the tithes which Amos treats with such contempt. In regard 
to the ma^^eboth, the author is more nearly a representative of the 
popular religion than is his predecessor, J. He even gives us an 
example of a sacred pillar erected on a tomb, showing that he 
had no distinct opposition t( the worship of the manes. ^ In the 
matter of sacred trees, both J and E seem to have shared the 
superstition of their contemporaries. But, in general, E shows a 
more advanced, at least a less anthropomorphic, conception of 
divine things. His fondness for dreams as the method of revela- 
tion is, perhaps, due to his idea of the distance between God and 
man, though popular conceptions doubtless had their influence. 

The prophetic preaching of righteousness as a condition of 
Yahweh's good pleasure, has doubtless influenced our author. 
In his account of the covenant with Israel in the wilderness, he 
inserts not a decalogue but the whole codex which we have no- 
ticed under the name Book of the Covenant.^ He could hardly 
be expected to see that legalism might become almost as fatal to 
spiritual religion as was the sensuousness of Baal worship. In 
his rehearsal of the various deliverances of the past, he doubtless 
comforted himself wi th the thought that the future was not alto- 
gether hopeless. It is possible, however, that he looked upon 
the monarchy as an institution contrary to the will of God, and 
that he rewrote the history of its rise under the hostile bias which 
betrays itself in the later- portions of the book of Samuel.' That 
he had a high idea of the prophetic office has already been no- 
ticed. Doubtless his political ideal was embodied in the theoc- 
racy whose executive officer was Moses, and which he thought to 
be revived in the time of Samuel.* 

^ There seems to be no other way to account for the maffeba on the tomb 
of Rachel, Gen. 3S^^. That animism was a part of the popular religion 
down to a comparatively late date cannot be doubted. 

^ Ex. 20-23. Cf. M'hat was said above, p. 174 fT. 

^ Notably in I Sam. 7, 8, and 12 — though in their present form these 
chapters are later than the time we are now considering. 

* I am aware that the writing ascribed to E shows marks of various hands. 
What has been said above applies to the edition published in the time of 



THE FALL OF SAMARL\ 221 

Fuller light upon the state of things in Israel is given by the 
book of Hosea. The author, who is a younger contemporary of 
Auios, is in almost every respect his opposite. The strong moral 
purpose and the conviction that they have a divine message to 
deliver is common to both men. But in almost every other re- 
spect they are as different as men could be. Amos is the stern 
moralist; Hosea is the man of religious affection. Amos sees 
the righteous will of Yahweh pronouncing and executing judg- 
ment upon Israel ; Hosea has a vision of the loving heart of 
Yahweh grieving over His erring children. The temperament 
of the men is different and their experiences in life bring the 
difference into high relief. 

The remarkable thing in the life of Hosea is the cloud which 
rested upon it, which yet gave him new light on the nature of 
God. He married a woman who proved to be unworthy, and 
he tenderly loved her even after she was untrue to him. He 
seems to have suspected her fidelity as early as the birth of his 
second child, for he called the little girl by the strange name 
Unloved. His suspicions were confirmed before the birth of the 
next child, whom he called Not-7ny-kin. Then the faithless wom- 
an ran away from her home and abandoned herself to a life of 
shame, the end of which was to make her an abject slave. In 
spite of all her baseness Hosea found that his heart still went out 
toward her, and he bought her from her master that she might 
again be his own. 

At the end of this experience, it was revealed to him that this 
was the Lord's doing. He saw that the scenes he had gone 
through were a presentation in human life of the drama in which 
Yahweh and Israel had the leading parts. Yahweh had chosen 
Israel as His own, but Israel had been unfaithful. The very 
names that Hosea had been led to give his children were reve- 
lations of the mind of Yahweh. Jezreel^ the first-born, fore- 
shadowed the vengeance that should be taken for the crime of 
Jezreel.* Unloved^ the next child, shows the revulsion of feeling 

Jeroboam II or a little later. This edition did not include the decalogue of 
Ex. 20, nor the account of the golden bull now read in Ex. 32. 

' That is, Jehu's murder of the two kings and Jezebel. The blood rested 
UDon the house of Jehu. The progress that is marked by Hosea, as com- 
pared with the time when the Yahweh party made Jehu their instrument, 
must be evident. The two passages which speak of Hosea's relations with 
his wife (i '^-'^ and 2 ^-^) should be read together. 



222 OI-D TESTAMENT HISTORY 

in the heart of Yahweh, in view of Israel's defection from Him. 
Not-my-ki7i^ the youngest, indicates the breaking off of the rela- 
tions which had existed between Yahweh and Israel. And yet 
even when the final sentence of separation has been pronounced 
the heart of Yahweh goes out toward His people, as the heart of 
the prophet went out to his erring wife. He cannot give them 
up. Though for a time He may be unable to restrain them from 
wandering, yet His love impels Him to go after them. He will 
seek them and lead them again into the wilderness, where, as of 
yore, the covenant will be established between them. The heart 
of Yahweh is revealed to us by the heart of man. 

Hosea is thus tlie man of the affections. This is the thing 
most clearly brought out by his book. But in other points also 
he differs strikingly from Amos. First of these is his attitude 
towards the popular religion. Both prophets reject the cultus, 
but they reject it for different reasons. Amos is impressed with 
the worthlessness of all ritual — " to obey is better than sacrifice 
and to hearken than the fat of lambs " might be a quotation from 
one of his discourses. He nowhere intimates that Israel's worship 
was offered to any but Israel's God. But he believes that ritual 
service has no value ; if men will only do right, this service may 
be dispensed with. Hosea's position is different. He, too, re- 
jects the popular ritual, but for another reason — he distinctly as- 
serts that it has as its object, not Yahweh, but Baal. Here again 
he shows his religious temperament. He seems to be aware of 
the Canaanitish origin of the sanctuaries, and of the worship 
there offered. He sees that the intention of the people is to con- 
ciliate the Canaanite god of agriculture. He represents Israel as 
saying : ''I will go after my lovers, who give me my h'ead and my 
water, my wool a?id 7?ty flax, my oil and my wine.'" ^ This is, 
in essence, heathenism — it is serving God for hire. The people, 
to be sure, are unaware of the difference. They have identified 
Yahweh and Baal, and, so long as they are seeking Yahweh, they 
suppose they are in the right way. Hosea does not so judge. He 
sees that Baal is Baal, even though he is called Yahweh. The 
true God of Israel is of a different nature from Baal. 

Another point is that Hosea, in contrast with Amos, looks upon 

* Lo-ammi means either Not-my^kin or Not-my-peoph and is perhaps 
chosen for the double signification. 
2 Hosea 2 \ 



THE FALL OF SAMARIA 223 

the coming calamity not as the final destruction of the nation, 
but as a chastisement, out of which the people will come purified. 
It seems clear that Amos had no such hope. He believed that 
the disobedient nation was to be clean destroyed. What would 
follow he does not tell us. Could Yahweh exist without a 
chosen nation to serve Him ? Amos does not answer the question. 
If he supposed that Yahweh would make choice of a new people, 
he nowhere revealed the thought. Perhaps he did not speculate. 
But Hosea could not rest in the thought of Israel's final destruc- 
tion. He knew that the heart of God goes out to His people 
even in their erring: '' Return, Israel, to Yahweh thy God, for 
thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. ... I will heal their 
backslidings, I will love them freely, for my wrath has turned 
from them. I will be as the dew to Israel; he shall spring up 
like the lily . . . and shall be like the fruitful olive ; he 
shall be fragrant as Lebanon." ^ 

Both in identifying the popular worship with Baal worship, and 
in holding out a hope of a restoration, Hosea was the forerunner 
of later writers. In truth, in uttering these two thoughts, he 
was more influential than any other one man whose writings have 
come down to us. The fact is clear that all late Hebrew writers 
agree in condemning the earlier generations for their desertion of 
Yahweh. Equally clear is it, that hope of a prosperous future 
beyond the present calamities became the mainspring of speech 
and of action almost from this time on. 

Nevertheless, Hosea's picture of the state of things in his own 
time is as dark as that of Amos — darker, if that were possible. 
The religious defection which he discovered in the popular relig- 
ion was accompanied by a moral defection that may well be 
called desperate. There is no fidelity and no knowledge of God 
in the land. False swearing, murder, theft, adultery, violence, 
are seen on every hand. The reason is found in the conduct of 
the leading classes. With Hosea these are not the nobles and 
landowners, but the priests and prophets ; it is not strange that 

* Hosea, 14 ^-''. The passage has probably been worked over — we can un- 
derstand the temptation of the later editors to mitigate the severe denuncia- 
tions of the earlier prophets. A number of such modifications are found in 
the Book of Hosea, and are easily recognisable as insertions. It must be 
true, however, that Hosea had hopes of a restoration. If Yahweh still loves 
His people though erring, there must be a future for them. 



224 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

he, the man of rehgion, should find the chief guilt in the relig- 
ious leaders. They are the ones who should instruct the people 
in righteousness; but instead, they lead them into sin. The 
unclean rites at the sanctuaries, the orgies of the sacred seasons — 
these are corrupting the heart of the people. Under the name 
of rehgion all sorts of abominations are connived at, nay, directly 
fostered by the religious leaders ; because they were enabled thus 
to exploit the people for their personal gain. We may think of 
the festivals at the great sanctuaries as like the Arab fairs, where 
men's chief object was trade and dissipation. The chief sanctu- 
aries thus become dens of robbers, where cheating and extortion 
are under the protection of the guilds of priests. The guilds 
of priests themselves profit by them like so many companies of 
bandits. In this way the priests have become a snare for the 
common people, and the royal house shares their guilt by not 
putting an end to these abuses. 

The people themselves have an uneasy consciousness that all is 
not right with them. They have spasms of repentance in which 
they confess their sin. At the same time they comfort them- 
selves with the thought that the door of repentance is always 
open ; Yahweh is easily found, and though He has smitten, it is 
easy for Him to heal. Their good thoughts are evanescent — like 
the morning cloud, or like the mist that early vanishes away.^ 
The lack of a sense of responsibility is seen in the way they treat 
the present crisis. At one time they will make their confession 
to Yahweh, but the next day they will be seeking help from As- 
syria or Egypt: " Ephraim saw his sickness and Israel his 
running sore; so Ephraim went to Assyria and sent to the Great 
King : but he is not able to save you or heal the running sore." ^ 
The nation is like the foolish dove which follows the call of the 
fowler, flying to meet its doom. Israel, as though infatuated, flies 
now toward Egypt, now toward Assyria : " They make a treaty 
with Assyria, and then send a present of oil to Egypt " — the very 
capriciousness of their conduct is enough to work their destruc- 
tion. The frivolity in domestic affairs is equally marked with 
what shows itself in their foreign policy. Evidence is found in 
the frequent change of dynasty. They anoint a king in false- 
hood, and princes in deceit; they rejoice in the coronation fes- 

1 Hosea, 5 ^^-6 *, where the verses ^-^ are the lip confession of the people. 
* Hosea, 5 ^^, correcting some errors in the text ; cf. 7 ^^ 8 ^, 12 ^ 



THE FALL OF SAMARLV 225 

tival, and within a few days their wrath breaks out and they 
destroy the object of their uncertain loyalty. No wonder that 
Yahweh declares: " They set up kings but not of my will, they 
appoint princes but I take no knowledge of tkem." The mon- 
archy as an institution is a punishment visited upon the people ; 
but it can scarcely be a relief to have the whole frame of govern- 
ment swept away — " I gave thee a king in my wrath, and I will 
take him away in my fury." ^ 

Hosea's anticipations for the immediate future were therefore 
gloomy. Calamity was impending, though the love of Yahweh 
might spare a remnant for Himself. The present anarchy was, 
indeed, itself a manifestation of the wrath of Yahweh, but this 
was only a shadow of the coming event. Whether to Assyria or 
to Egypt, the people would be taken from their own land. Far 
from the soil made sacred by the presence of Yahweh, they 
would be condemned to eat bread desecrated by its dedication 
to a strange god. It was only justice that they should be given 
completely into the hand of the foreign gods to whom they had 
shown favour. Though the heart of Yahweh was love, His pres- 
ent mood was indignation : " Should I ransom them from the 
hand of Sheol ? Should I redeem them from death ? Rather, 
bring on thy scourges. Death ! Hither with thy pestilence, 
Sheol ! Pity is hidden from mine eyes."^ 

The political outlook was rapidly growing worse for Israel, and 
Hosea's gloomiest forebodings were justified. After a period of 
comparative inactivity, Assyria was asserting itself with fresh 
vigour under the rule of Tiglath-pileser III (b.c. 745-727). This 
monarch was not only a man of great energy of character, but 
he introduced a new policy for the empire. The earlier kings 
had for the most part been content to leave the subject nations 
some sort of autonomy. The native rulers were retained upon 
the throne and their internal administration was not interfered 
with, so long as the tribute was paid. Tiglath-pileser is remark- 
able for the constancy with which he speaks of appointing his 
governor over a conquered province. In fact, he characterizes 

^ Hosea, 13 ^' ; cf. 7 ^, 8 *- ^0, 10 ^ The prophet seems to anticipate that the 
fall of the house of Jehu will carry with it the abolition of monarchy. I can- 
not otherwise understand the threat : "I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon 
the house of Jehu and will blot out the kingship of the house of Israel," i *. 

* Ibid.y 13 **, I have reproduced what seems to be the sense of the passage. 



226 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

himself as the king who subjugated the upper and lower countries, 
deposed their kings and inaugiwated his vicegerents} This meas- 
ure was not enough, however, for his ideas of statecraft. It was 
supplemented by another to prevent the possibility of revolt. 
This was nothing less than the deportation of the inhabitants of 
a province, or a considerable fraction of them, and settlement of 
them among strangers at a distance from their home. In their 
new situation they would be unable to make common cause with 
their fellow-subjects and the throne would be secure. The in- 
genuity of the measure was not greater than its cruelty. Some of 
the unhappy emigrants were settled in cities built or enlarged by 
the king ; some were brought to Assyria proper ; some were 
placed in remote provinces. The king has left on record various 
instances of this procedure, giving account of the numbers trans- 
ported and of the destination to which they were taken.^ In 
this method of treatment was a new terror for the nations. The 
renewed activity of Assyria meant that ancient claims upon the 
nations of Syria would be revived, and if revived that they would 
be enforced in ways destructive to the national life. 

We have already noted that the dynasty of Jehu came to an 
end with Zechariah ben Jeroboam. Shallum, his assassin, was mur- 
dered by Menahem, who had a troubled reign of ten years. He is 
mentioned by the Assyrians as sending tribute at the same time 
with Rezin of Damascus, the kings of Gebal, Tyre, Hamath, and 
a large number of other cities^ or countries of Syria. This is 
the tribute of a thousand talents of silver mentioned by the Bib- 
lical writer. Menahem raised the money by a direct tax upon the 
men capable of bearing arms. As they were assessed fifty shekels 
apiece, there were sixty thousand householders in the kingdom.* 
This was in the year 738 b. c. Whether Egypt was already acting 
cannot positively be made out, but it seems that the Assyrians 

^ Keilinschriftliche Biblioihek, II. p. 5. His account of his many con- 
quests inserts in almost every case : / set my vicegerent over them, 

'^ Ibid., II., p. 29 f. 

^Ibid., II, p. 31. The name of the King of Damascus is given by the 
Biblical writers as Rezin. The form Rezon (Assyrian Rasunnn) is perhaps 
nearer the original. 

* The owners of landed property were the only ones allowed to bear arms. 
It may be proper to remind the reader that the king called Pul in 2 Kings, 
is''' is Tiglath-pileser. I have taken no account of the inscription of this 
king {Keilinschr, Bibliothek, II, p. 27) which speaks of Azriyau of Yaudi 



THE FALL OF SAMARIA 22/ 

kept a close watch upon the country of the Nile from a very 
early date. It was the natural policy of Egypt when threatened, 
to employ the Palestinian states as a buffer, if not to enlist them 
actively in its service. Palestine is the natural outpost of Egypt, 
and we are not surprised to learn from Hosea that an Egyptian 
alliance was agitated in Israel about this time. The tribute of 
Menahem kept things quiet for the time being. His son, Pek- 
ahiah was allowed to rule (or only to reign) two years, when he 
was cut off by one Pekah, apparently a misguided patriot who was 
hoping to throw off the Assyrian yoke. In this he was encour- 
aged by Rezin of Damascus, who planned a general uprising of 
the western countries. Judah, where Ahaz was on the throne, 
would not join the coalition. The first endeavour of the allies, 
therefore, was to force Judah to join them. They invaded the 
country, and were able to lay siege to Jerusalem. It was a part 
of their plan to depose Ahaz, and put a Syrian prince on the 
throne,^ and the terror they inspired in Ahaz indicates either 
that they were greatly his superiors in power, or that there was a 
strong party in Judah in sympathy with the invaders. Both may 
be true, but more weight must be given to the sympathy with the 
invaders. All the hot-heads and advocates of the ancient liber- 
ties of Judah would urge rebellion against the Assyrian oppressor. 
We may admire the courage of their programme without approv- 
ing its discretion. In fact, the attempt was hopeless. Isaiah was 
right in predicting the early downfall of the two kingdoms. 

Ahaz was moved by his fears rather than by the assurances of 
Isaiah. This is indicated by the effusiveness with which he threw 
himself into the arms of Assyria. With all the valuables of his 
own treasury, as well as those in the Temple, he sent the message: 
*' I am thy slave and thy son ; save me from the King of Syria 
and the King of Israel, who are attacking me." "^ Tiglath-pileser 
needed no prompting. The refusal of tribute by Rezin and Pekah 

heading a conspiracy against the Assyrians. In spite of the similarity of 
names I cannot think that Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah was strong enough to 
head such a movement. For the other view, cf. McCurdy, History, Proph- 
ecy, and the Monuments, I, p. 347 f. 

^ Or perhaps to incorporate Judah in the Kingdom of Damascus, in which 
case Rezin himself is the "Son of Tabeal," of the account in Isaiah (7^) ; 
cf. Winckler, Alttest. Untersitchimgen, p. 73 f. 

2 2 Kings, 16 ^ The position of Isaiah will be considered again, more in 
detail. 



228 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

had already set his army in motion. In the invasion which ensued 
Damascus was taken, Rezin was slain, large numbers of his peo- 
ple were deported to the East/ In this campaign the Great 
King carried his arms as far as Gaza. The whole land of Israel 
was taken in possession. Samaria was spared the horrors of siege, 
but large sections of the country were depopulated, the inhabit- 
ants being carried away to the eastern provinces of the empire. 
The reason that the capital was spared was that Hoshea, a creat- 
ure of the Assyrians, succeeded in slaying the king, and put him- 
self in his stead as the Assyrian appointee.^ The impoverished 
land had to pay a tribute of ten talents of gold and a thousand 
talents of silver. 

The next Assyrian king, Shalmaneser IV, has left us no annals. 
The Biblical writer says that Hoshea was found conspiring against 
his master, because he sent messengers to So, King of Egypt, 
and because he did not send the tribute. We can readily un- 
derstand the delay in sending the tribute ; it was a physical 
impossibility to wring anything from the exhausted country. 
The negotiation with the King of Egypt is less easy to account 
for. One would think that Israel had had object-lessons enough 
both to teach the power of Assyria, and to warn against the un- 
certainty of reliance upon Egypt. Still Egypt was a name to 
conjure with in Palestine. Its early power and wealth had laid 
upon its neighbours a spell that was never removed. Their re- 
peated disappointments seemed to make them no wiser. At 
about the period now under consideration, Egypt was showing 
new activity. The king, whose name is So^^ according to the 
traditional Hebrew text, is probably to be identified with the Sa- 
bako of the Egyptian records. He was an energetic prince of 
Ethiopian origin, who succeeded in bringing all Egypt under his 
sway. His career might well make an impression on Hoshea. 
Active antagonism between Egypt and Assyria developed as a 

^ The capture of the city and the death of Rezin are mentioned, 2 Kings, 
16 ^ The Assyrian annals are still defective at this point. 

^ Tiglath-pileser claims to have slain Pekah, and to have appointed Hoshea, 
Keilinschr. Bibliothek, II, p. 2>Z' Cf. Winckler, Alttest. Untersuchungen,"^. 
18. The twenty years' reign assigned to Pekah, by 2 Kings, 15 ^7, must be 
an error ; see Paton, Early History of Syria and Palestine, p. 240. 

^ The vocalisation is probably at fault. The Assyrian pronunciation Sib^u 
would indicate that the Hebrew consonants were originally intended to be 
read Sewe. 



THE FALL OF SAMARIA 229 

consequence of Sabako's ambitious plans. Doubtless he had 
worked up a coalition, of which Hoshea was a member. The As- 
syrian reply was an invasion which crushed out the remnants of 
strength that showed themselves in this convulsive movement. 
The first blow naturally fell upon Samaria. The city was in- 
vested, but held out two years. Meanwhile the country experi- 
enced the extremity of war. Shalmaneser did not hve to see 
the surrender of Israel's capital. His successor, Sargon, enrolled 
it among his conquests. The other members of the coalition 
fared no better than Israel. Sargon carried his arms to the ex- 
treme south of Philistia, where he met the tardy Egyptian army 
and defeated it. He claims to have received tribute from a Pha- 
raoh as a consequence of the battle.^ 

The fall of Samaria took place early in the year b.c. 721. 
Sargon claims to have carried away 27,290 of the inhabitants of 
the city. These we may suppose to be the well-to-do, if any 
may be so described after a two years' siege. He says expressly 
that he left the rest in possession of their property. The country 
was formally made a province of the empire, a governor being 
appointed over it. Thus the Kingdom of Israel came to an end 
about two hundred years after its establishment by Jeroboam ben 
Nebat. The outlying districts had been ravaged, and numbers 
of the people carried away by Tiglath-pileser, whose work was 
now completed by Sargon. According to the Biblical narrative 
the unfortunate emigrants were settled in the Assyrian province 
of Gozan^ and in the mountains of Media. Imagination has 
busied itself with the fate of the lost Ten Tribes, as though they 
must be retaining their coherence in some far-off country, ready 
for the return expected and described by the prophets. The his- 

* Sargon's account is to the effect that Hanun of Gaza, together with 
Sib'u, General {Turtan) of Egypt, opposed him at Raphia. The place 
may be identified with Tell Riph, just at the Wadi el Arish, and therefore 
on the border of Egypt. Hanun had trusted in the strength of his fortifi- 
cations, leaving the city to defend itself, while he and his troops effected a 
junction with the Egyptians. What were the relations between Sib'u and 
the Pharaoh who is named as tributary to Sargon is not clear. Cf. Keilin- 
schr. Bibliothek, II, p. 55 ; McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and Monuments, 
I, p. 422. Winckler finds here the Arabian kingdom of Mitfri instead of 
Egypt; Keilinschriften und Altes Testament,'^ pp. 67, 146. 

' In Upper Mesopotamia. On the text of 2 Kings, 17^, compare Winckler's 
Alttest. UntersHchungen, p. 108 ff. 



230 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

tory we have traced allows us to cherish no illusions. The Ten 
Tribes in captivity are a figment of the imagination. There 
never was such a political or social entity. The Israelites were 
carried off as fragments, and as fragments they were scattered 
widely apart in the provinces of Assyria. In the struggle for sub- 
sistence among strangers they either succumbed to their misery 
or became absorbed into the communities in the midst of which 
they were planted. They had no faith in Yahweh strong enough 
to resist the influences by which they were surrounded. The fate 
of Israel made them doubt either the power or the affection of 
their God. Why should they persist in the worship of a God 
who had been unable to save His own, or else had cast them 
off? The gods of their neighbours might be more kind or more 
efficient than the God of their fathers. The prophets no 
longer spoke to them ; the written Law had not yet become a 
power. We can understand how in such circumstances this 
should be their reasoning, and, as its consequence, that they 
should adopt the religion and the customs of their new homes. 

A curious monument of the antique way of looking at religion 
is preserved to us in the sequel to our account. I refer to the 
story of the colonists who were brought into the land of Israel to 
take the place of those who had been carried away. We must, of 
course, remember that no country is ever absolutely stripped of 
its inhabitants. Such a thing is an impossibility. Even were it 
possible, the kings of Assyria had no interest in making a desert 
of any one of their provinces. Such an act would be contrary 
to their own interest. Their purpose in the transfer of peoples 
was to mix their subjects in such proportions that they would 
lose tribal or national coherence, and would find it impos- 
sible to revolt. In Samaria, as we have already noted, Sargon 
left a considerable number of Israehtes in undisturbed possession 
of their property. Along with these he settled compulsory immi- 
grants from the eastern provinces of his empire.^ 

^ 2 Kings, 17 ^*. The Hebrew writer, who live^ at least as late as the Ex- 
ile, names Babylon, Kutha, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim as the native 
countries of the colonists. The more remote Babylon and Kutha are the 
probable sources. Possibly more than one settlement was made, since the 
book of Ezra (4^) speaks of a colony settled by Esarhaddon, and a little later 
(Ezra, 4 ^") we hear the colonists ascribe their settlement to Assurbanipal 
(Asnapper). On the questions involved, see Winckler, Alttestamentliche 
Untersuchungen^ pp. 97-110. 



THE FALL OF SAMARIA 2^1 

The new settlers were soon in trouble. The country, so devas- 
tated by repeated wars, gave harbour to ferocious beasts. Lions 
increased to such an extent as to become a serious menace. In 
an age ignorant of firearms, such a calamity is always among the 
possibilities — an early Biblical writer found a sufficient reason for 
Yahweh's not dispossessing the Canaanites all at once in the dan- 
ger that in the desolated country *' the beasts of the field should 
increase" against the Israehtes.^ In the case before us, the new 
inhabitants of Samaria searched their consciences for a cause of 
the visitation. They found it in the wrath of the God of the land 
at their neglect of His worship. That they might make good their 
shortcoming, and that they might do it in the manner pleasing to 
Him, theypetitioned the kingof Assyria for an instructor in religion. 
One of the Israelite priests was therefore sent from the East ' ' and 
taught them how they should fear Yahweh." The scorn of the 
narrator for the people who thus feared Yahweh, while still serv- 
ing their ancestral gods, is evident, and makes us doubt the lit- 
eral truth of his story. The need of a priest to teach the colon- 
ists is not apparent — there were enough Israelites left in the land 
to teach the traditional worship, even if we suppose the whole 
body of priests to have been carried away. But the actual result 
reached — the adoption of the worship of Yahweh — is probably 
correctly described. It is what would be most likely to take 
place in any ancient community. Yahweh was the God of the 
land. To neglect Him would be dangerous to the new settlers. 
We have seen just this tendency at work in the earlier times in 
relation to the Baal-worship of the Canaanites and its effect on 
the Israelites. And, if it made Yahweh- worshippers of the new- 
comers, the same tendency working on the deported Israelites 
would lead them to adopt the religion of their new homes, and 
would result in the practical abandonment of Yahweh.^ 

The old Israelite spirit seems not to have been wholly broken, 

* Ex. 23 ■^. Even in this age of firearms, lions seriously interfered with 
the construction of a railway in Africa. See the London Spectator for March, 
1900, p. 307. 

^ The account in 2 Kings, 17 '-*-''*, seems to be composite. The more an- 
cient element represents the visitation of the lions as a chastisement by Yah- 
weh, in punishment of the new people's neglect. It seems to see in there- 
suit a genuine adoption of Yahweh by the newcomers. A later hand empha- 
sises the syncretistic character of the new religion, doubtless with a strong 
prejudice against the Samaritans. 



232 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

even by conquest, siege, and the intrusion of strangers, for we 
hear of a revolt of Samaria two years after the surrender to Sar- 
gon.^ But this was only the last convulsive gasp of the body 
politic in its death-throes. With the incorporation of Ephraim 
into the Assyrian province called "Beyond the River," it ceases 
to belong to the history of Israel. That history is carried on by 
Judah alone, who now receives our heightened interest. 

For the last period of the life of Samaria, Judah has left us al- 
most no records. As we have seen, the folly of Amaziah brought 
his kingdom into vassalage to Israel. It is not likely that the 
relation was changed during the lifetime of Jeroboam II. The 
king, whom we usually call Uzziah,^ may have had energy enough 
to assert his independence. Almost the only thing that our 
sources record of his fifty years' reign is that he fortified Eloth 
at the head of the Gulf of Akaba and '' brought it again to 
Judah." ^ As Amaziah, his father, had conquered Edom, we 
must suppose that a revolt took place at the accession of Uzziah, 
but that it was quelled so far as to retain Eloth,* and with it con- 
trol of the Arabian commerce, in the hands of Judah. 

Uzziah was afflicted with leprosy during the latter years of his 
life, and the administration of affairs was formally committed 
to his son Jotham. The author of the Book of Chronicles de- 
scribes the leprosy as a visitation of God, in punishment for an 
act of sacrilege on the part of the king — he attempted to usurp 
the priest's function so far as to burn incense in the Temple. The 
Greek translator of the account emphasises the miracle by an 
earthquake accompanied by a celestial voice. The legendary na- • 
ture of the narrative in both forms is evident. And the doubts 
which it occasions naturally extend to the Chronicler's account 
of Uzziah's success, both in war and in the arts of peace. ^ 

^ Perhaps disorders incident to the deportation of the people are dignified 
by the name of a revolt by Sargon. 

^ In the majority of cases he is so called in the Hebrew text, but he is sev- 
eral times called Azariah. The latter seems to be the original form. 

^ 2 Kings, 14^2. Amaziah's victory over Edom is related in 15^. 

* Our Hebrew text fluctuates between Eloth and Elath as the name of the 
place, and the English version also gives both forms. I have retained Eloth 
because the name was probably a plural. 

^The text of 2 Kings, 15^, is corrupt. While we are able to make out 
that Jotham administered justice in the king's stead, we are not able to say 
what treatment the king himself received. Apparently he was not compelled 
to isolate himself, except so far as the public business was concerned. 



THE FALL OF SAMARIA 233 

The comparatively brief reign of Jotham (b.c. 739-734) gives 
us nothing to record. We may well suppose that the shadow of 
coming events lay upon the country, and this is perhaps indicated 
by the Hebrew writer when he says that in those days Yahweh 
began to incite Rezin of Syria, and Pekah of Israel against Ju- 
dah/ This means that Pekah, who assassinated his master near 
the end of Jotham's reign, was already pressing his plan of a co- 
alition against Assyria. We need not suppose, therefore, that 
sympathy with the disorganisation in Israel was acute in Judah. 
The two kingdoms had long been separate, and had generally 
been hostile. Only half a century had elapsed since Jehoash en- 
tered the capital as a conqueror and razed a considerable part of 
its fortifications. Still, the traditional hostility could hardly keep 
thoughtful men in Judah from sympathising in the troubles of 
those who were, after all, of the same blood as themselves. The 
prophet Isaiah shows some traces of this sympathy, but his keen 
sense of the justice of Yahweh makes him view the coming ca- 
lamity as testimony to the sinfulness of the sister kingdom. We 
may read his verdict in one of the early chapters of his book : 

" For Yahweh has rejected His people 

The house of Jacob ; 
For they are full of divination from the East 

And of magicians, like the Philistines, 
And they strike hands with foreigners." '^ 

The terms of the description leave no doubt that the prophet 
saw the kingdom of Samaria, in apparent external prosperity, en- 
tering into close alliance with other nations and adopting their 
superstitions. That Judah is travelling the same road does not 
make things better. More distinct is the following: 

*' The Lord has sent a word against Jacob 

And it has lighted upon Israel, 
And the people shall know, ail of them, 

Ephraim and the dwellers in Samaria ; 
Who stiffen their neck in pride 

And in self-conceit, saying : 
The bricks are fallen 

But we will build with hewn stone ; 

^2 Kings, 15 ^'. The sixteen years given to Jotham's reign must include 
the years of his regency. 

* Isaiah, 2^'. The whole passage should be read in this connexion. 



234 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

The sycomores are hewn down 

But we will replace them with cedars. 
Yahweh will raise up his enemies against him, 

And will stir up his adversaries ; 
Syria in the east and Philistia in the west ; 

To devour Israel with open mouth. 
Even then His wrath will not turn away, 

And His hand is stretched out still." * 

The discourse continues with a still stronger denunciation of 
punishment. In line with Amos and Hosea the prophet dis- 
covers the reason for the coming calamity in the inhumanity of 
the upper classes "who issue iniquitous decrees and enact op- 
pressive statutes, to shut out the lowly from justice, and to secure 
a decision by intimidation in the case of the oppressed." 

The unity of the prophetic teaching in the two kingdoms is 
thus made evident. And that Jerusalem and Samaria were much 
alike is shown further by the fact that prophecies originally di- 
rected against Samaria have been adapted to the situation in 
Isaiah's own city. The most convincing instance is the power- 
ful passage which begins with a woe upon the "proud crown 
of Ephraim, the drunkard." The proud crown is, of course, 
Samaria itself, and the threat that it shall be trodden under foot 
foreshadows the doom of the city. But as it has come down to 
us the paragraph has been made the text of a sermon against the 
drunkards of Judah.^ In like manner the bold description of the 
Day of Yahweh bringing destruction "on all that is beautiful 
and brilliant, on all that is high and noble, on all the proud 
cedars of Lebanon, and all the lofty oaks of Bash an " — may 
well have been spoken in view of the impending invasion of the 
northern kingdom.^ But it is now a part of a discourse against 
the people of Judah. 

The youthful Ahaz (b.c. 735-730) came to an inheritance of 
trouble. The temporary wave of energy in Samaria and Damas- 
cus showed itself in the invasion of Judah, to which allusion has 
already been made. At the same time (we may suppose) the 

* Isaiah, 9"-^^ For the text see Cheyne's edition in Haupt's Sacred Books 
of the Old Testament (1899). 

^ Ibid., 28 '"*. The continuation is evidently by the prophet himself, but of 
later date. 

^ Ibid., 2 ^""^^, Notice the continuation in 3 ' ^^ 



THE FALL OF SAMARIA 235 

Edomites seeing their opportunity, regained the port of Eloth.* 
Almost all we know of the reign of Ahaz is contained in the ac- 
count of the invasion given in the book of Isaiah.^ The approach 
of the allied army caused a panic in Jerusalem. As the city has 
a precarious water supply, Ahaz at once proceeded to inspect the 
reservoirs. While thus engaged he was sought out by Isaiah, 
who had a special message of encouragement for him. It is not 
difficult to suppose that the king had earlier denunciations of the 
prophet in mind, and feared that the invasion portended the 
great DayofYahweh. Isaiah is now charged to tell him that 
this is not the case. " Beware and keep calm ! Do not fear or 
let thy heart grow faint before these two half-burnt pieces of 
firewood." Isaiah saw that the strength of Syria and Ephraim 
was already spent. There was no reason to fear them ; and a 
sign of what the prophet expects was given. This sign is simply 
a prediction that a boy to be born in the coming year shall re- 
ceive the name God-with-us, because of the signal deliverance 
then witnessed, and that before the same child is weaned, the two 
hostile countries shall be themselves ravaged by an invader. To 
make a deeper impression Isaiah calls his own son, born about 
the same time. Haste-spoil-speed-prey , as a second sign that the 
riches of Damascus and Samaria are to fall into the hands of the 
king of Assyria.^ 

Ahaz was not impressed by the calm faith of Isaiah. He had 
recourse to Yahweh in much more drastic fashion — if we may 
connect with this invasion the sacrifice of his son of which the 
book of Kings speaks.* At the same time he had set his heart 
on a political measure — no less than complete submission to the 
Assyrian power. It was from this that Isaiah sought to deter 
him. The prophet's own theory was doubtless that Judah should 

^ 2 Kings, 16*', as amended by Klostermann. 

2 Isaiah, 7 and 8. The two chapters have been supplemented by later 
hands, as is shown in Cheyne's editions (text and translation), and in Duhm's 
commentary {Handkotnvientar, Gottingen, 1892). 

^ It is evident that the two children, Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, 
are given names symbolical of the same event. The destruction of Damas- 
cus (and virtually of Samaria) is to take place before one is weaned, before 
the other can talk. 

* 2 Kings, 16 ^. No other occasion in the life of Ahaz calls for so extraor- 
dinary a propitiatory act. The parallel with Mesha's sacrifice to Che 
mosh (3 2") is striking. What puzzles us is that Isaiah left no protest. 



236 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

trust to Yahweh alone. This implied that the people (or the 
monarch) should undertake social reforms, for righteousness and 
humanity alone would secure the favour of Yahweh. 

Political writers will probably criticise Isaiah's position as 
doctrinaire. But it is not certain that, even on the ground of an 
enlightened self-interest, Isaiah was not right. The two invad- 
ing kingdoms were actually in no condition to carry on a pro- 
longed siege. It was certain that in the near future, Assyria 
must interfere in order to conserve its own prestige. Had Ahaz 
chosen to rest in the righteousness of his cause, he would have 
been in a better position than he was in after his gratuitous 
submission to Assyria. 

What actually happened was (as we have seen) that Ahaz sent 
all the treasure he could lay his hands on to Tiglath-piieser, with 
an appeal for help. The great king was perhaps already on the 
march. When he entered Damascus in triumph, he held a great 
Durbar, at which Ahaz was present. All that the Biblical writer 
tells us, is that innovations in the Temple were the result of this 
visit. Ahaz was pleased with an altar which he saw at Damas- 
cus, and sent the pattern to his priest at Jerusalem with orders 
to make one like it This was set up in the Temple as the prin- 
cipal altar. ^ Other changes were made in the Temple as the 
result of this visit. A part of them — the cutting in pieces of 
some of the metal implements — may be accounted for as methods 
of raising money for the tribute. But structural changes belong 
in a different category. Whatever they were,^ they were under- 
taken for the sake of the king of Assyria, and we shall do no in- 
justice to Ahaz if we suppose they were intended to introduce the 
gods of Assyria to Jerusalem. Submission to the empire would 
logically imply such a step. The conscience of the king would 
pretty certainly find no objection to it, and the people at large 
would scarcely be more sensitive. Later generations would feel 
strongly the shame of such a desecration of the Temple, and it is 

^ Whether there was already an altar in the Temple is doubtful ; for we 
have seen reason to suppose that the native rock furnished the original place 
of sacrifice. In that case the reference to the "copper altar," 2 Kings, 
16'* '', is a later insertion as is, in fact, suggested by the language itself, which 
moreover is obscure in its indications of what was done, 

2 The text is unfortunately corrupt, but 2 Kings, 16 ^s, speaks of alterations 
in the building, and 23 ^^ knows of a roof chamber (?) of Ahaz, in connexion 
with idolatrous altars. 



THE FALL OF SAMARIA 237 

possible that the obscurity of our account comes from a purpose 
to conceal the facts. Isaiah must have protested, but the protest 
has not come down to us, unless it be in the denunciation of the 
idols of which the land was full. And it must be remembered 
that the burden upon his heart was the moral, rather than the 
religious, obliquity of the people. This moral obliquity was, in 
fact, defection from the religion of Yahweh, and a new god 
more or less did not much alter the state of things. 



CHAPTER XIII 

HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 

The fall of Samaria, however impressive as an object-lesson, 
made no great difference in the political condition of Judah. 
The house of David still possessed the throne, and even breathed 
more freely in that its neighbour was no longer an indepen- 
dent kingdom, but a province under an Assyrian governor. The 
revolt of 720 B.C., to which allusion has already been made, was a 
part of the general uneasiness in Palestine. Sargon, as we know, 
that year made a campaign in which Philistia was severely pun- 
ished. Judah seems not to have taken part. Ahaz had, in fact, 
committed himself too deeply to the Assyrians to think of revolt 
so soon. The vassalage continued throughout his reign, and 
into that of his successor. 

The situation was, however, a difficult one for the youthful 
Hezekiah, who came to the throne about this time. The tribute 
was oppressive; Assyria was remote; there was a party favourable 
to Egypt, looking for an opportunity to revolt; the ancient lib- 
erties of Judah were doubtless remembered, and made the watch- 
word of a party of zealots. Hezekiah, who thus inherited a sit- 
uation not of his making, seems not to have been a man of steady 
purpose, and Isaiah's influence seems not to have been strong 
with him till toward the close of his life. We are not surprised 
that the reign was a time of disturbances and reverses. On the 
whole it is a credit to Hezekiah that he managed to keep his 
throne and to hand in on to his successor. Only a man of 
genius could have done more, and Hezekiah certainly was not 
a man of genius. 

The chronology of our Hebrew sources is clearly at fault in 
regard to the accession of Hezekiah.^ This must have taken place 

^ His accession is dated in the third year of Hoshea (2 Kings, 18^), and the 
capture of Samaria is assigned to the sixth of Hezekiah. The ordinary He- 
brew method of computation would make this the seventh, so that here is a 
discrepancy of one year Now the invasion of Sennacherib is said to have 

238 



HEZEKIAH AND MAXASSEH 239 

about the year 730. Besides the faulty chronology, the author 
gives us his religious estimate of the king in extravagant language. 
Sweeping reforms are attributed to him — the abolition of the 
High-places, the breaking in pieces of the pillars, the cutting 
down of the sacred pole. A tormenting question always arises in 
considering this description — whether the author has not been 
influenced by the conceptions of a later time. One thing stands 
out prominently, however, because it so evidently could not 
have been a later invention — Hezekiah " cut in pieces the cop- 
per serpent which Moses made ; for until those days the Sons of 
Israel kept sacrificing to it, and it was called Nehushtan." ^ The 
clause which Moses itiade, refers to a well-known narrative in the 
account of the wilderness wandering. Here we read that the 
people were bitten by serpents. Moses is therefore commanded 
to make a copper serpent, and raise it upon a pole. Whoever is 
bitten and looks at the serpent is healed. It must be clear that 
we have here a survival from the primitive totemism of Israel. 
The serpent race, the enemies of man, are worshipped in the 
image w^hich presents their counterfeit to the eye. Sacrificing to 
it, which is here affirmed, is exactly the mode of worship de- 
scribed in the case of numerous other divinities.^ 

Why Moses should have made such an image for a people no- 
toriously prone to idolatry is a question that need not be dis- 
cussed. How such an image, if made by Moses, came into the 
Temple is also difficult to conceive. We are tempted, therefore 
to suppose the words which Moses made a later addition to the 
narrative and not the expression of Hezekiah's belief or of the 
belief of his contemporaries. In that case we must treat the 
Nehushtan as a veritable idol of the house of Israel, which had 
been worshipped in the Temple from the time of its erection. 

taken place in the fourteenth of Hezekiah (2 Kings, 18 '^^). But the capture 
of Samaria certainly belongs in the first year of Sargon, who reigned seven- 
teen years, and whose successor did not invade Judah till his third campaign, 
which must have been his third year at the very earliest. The error is obvi- 
ous. Sennacherib's invasion must be dated in 701, and both of the Biblical 
statements are at fault. See the discussion in McCurdy, Histoiy, Prophecy, 
and the Monuments, II, p. 248 fT. ; Paton, Early History of Syria, p. 247. 

^ 2 Kings, 18 *. The account of Moses's connexion with the serpent is 
found in Num. 21*-'. 

^The word is D''"TI3ptt, which is incorrectly rendered burning incense. 
Even if it were only burning incense, it would be an act of worship. 



240 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Serpent worship is so wide-spread that we should be surprised 
not to find traces of it in Israel. We know of a Serpent's Stone 
near Jerusalem which was the site of a sanctuary/ and this 
sanctuary was dedicated to Yahweh. This parallel makes us 
conclude that the copper serpent of the Temple was also a symbol 
of Yahweh. If this be so it may be attributed to Moses, though 
in a different way from that taken by the Hebrew author ; for 
Yahweh was introduced to Israel by Moses. Probably the ser- 
pent was thought to be a congenial symbol of the god of the 
lightning ^ — and that in the desert days Yahweh was the god of 
the lightning, or of the thunderstorm, seems well made out.^ 

What moved Hezekiah to the destruction of so venerable an 
object ? We can suppose only that Isaiah was concerned in the 
matter. The prophet was an enemy of idol worship. He did 
not think highly of ritual of any kind. But with his exalted con- 
ception of Yahweh, the attempt to represent Him under animal 
forms must have been particularly obnoxious. His sarcastic al- 
lusion to the number of Judah's idols has already been quoted. 
Other passages of this kind are not easily found in the genuine 
prophecies of Isaiah. In general he is absorbed in the thought 
that the popular religion is all wrong and he does not stop to 
objurgate individual features of it. One thing is clear. If the 
removal of Nehushtan from the Temple was due to Isaiah's in- 
fluence it must have taken place toward the close of Hezekiah's 
reign. And whatever other religious reforms were undertaken 
belong in the same period. We have no evidence, however, 
that the removal of the High-places was a part of Isaiah's pro- 
gramme. 

The Hebrew historian boasts further that Hezekiah ' ' rebelled 

1 1 Kings, I * That Adonijah chose a sanctuary for his festival is evident. 

2 On the serpent and the lightning, see Baudissin, Shtdien zur Semit- 
ischen Religionsgeschichte, I, p. 264. The curious will find a collection of 
material concerning serpent worship in Deane, The Worship of the Serpent 

(1833). 

3 1 have laid no stress on the Sernphwi of Isaiah's vision, though their 
name is identical with that of the desert serpents. The name Nehushtan 
must be connected with nahash (serpent). The occurrence of the proper 
names Nahash, Nahshon, and Nehushta among the Hebrews is readily ac- 
counted for if the serpent was an object of worship, but not otherwise. 
Speculations on the Babylonian origin of the Nehushtan may be read in the 
Encyclop. Biblical sub voce. 



HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 24I 

against the King of Assyria, and did not serve him, and that he 
smote the Phihstines to Gaza and its boundary, both watch-tower 
and fortified city." ^ The tradition has here preserved only one 
side of the case. Hezekiah did revolt from Assyria, and at the 
time of the revolt he gained a temporary advantage over his 
natural enemies the Philistines. But the sequel was sadly con- 
trary to his hopes. With the help of the book of Isaiah and the 
Assyrian records we are able to trace the course of events. 

The seditions at the accession of Sargon have already been 
alluded to, and some account has been given of this king's mvasion 
of Philistia in 720. This campaign is perhaps alluded to in the 
little poem of Isaiah which the editor dates in the year of Ahaz's 
death : 

" Rejoice not, all Philistia, 

That broken is the rod that smote thee ; 

For from the root of the serpent shall issue a basilisk, 

And its fruit shall be a fiery dragon. " ^ 

The rod that smote will be Shalmaneser, and the basilisk to fol- 
low will then be Sargon. Certainly the character of Sargon an- 
swers the description. He himself recounts how he invaded 
Philistia, besieged and captured Ashdod and other towns, carry- 
ing off the inhabitants. It is possible to suppose that Hezekiah, 
then just come to the throne, took part in this campaign, paying 
off Israel's old grudges against Philistia. But the supposition 
presents some dif^culties, and it seems on the whole more likely 
that Hezekiah's Philistine campaign belongs in the time of 
Sennacherib. 

A second expedition of Sargon is recorded nearly ten years 
after the king's accession. During these years Merodach-Baladan 
of Babylon was a thorn in the side of Assyria. He threw off the 
Assyrian suzerainty and was able to maintain himself against the 
efforts of Sargon. It need hardly be said that he strained every 
nerve to stir up revolt in the other dependencies of the empire. 
His embassy to Hezekiah, of which the Biblical writer makes 

' 2 Kings, 18 '^ ' , Kittel refers the two verses to different sources, on what 
grounds is not very clear. 

^ Isaiah, 1428-32 q^ the date see Cheyne, Introduction to Isaiah, and his 
edition of the text. Recent commentators are inclined to assign the piece to 
a much later time 



242 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

mention/ can be accounted for as an attempt to enlist Judah in 
such an enterprise. We may suppose that Hezekiah resisted the 
temptation at this time. But that he coquetted with the dis- 
tinguished stranger is indicated by Sargon, who accuses Judah, 
along with Edom, Moab, and Philistia, of sending presents to 
Pharaoh, King of Egypt, "■ a prince who could not save them," 
inviting him to an alliance. The disorganised condition of 
Egypt at the time has caused some to doubt the possibility of its 
being prominent in such a movement. But the language inti- 
mates that the Palestinian states were ready to revolt — being 
aware of the troubles of Assyria in the East — even without sub- 
stantial help from Egypt. In the year 711 Sargon sent a flying 
column against Ashdod and speedily reduced it to submission. 
In the year the Tartan came to Ashdod, we are told, Isaiah pre- 
dicted the defeat of Ethiopia and the captivity of its people. 
The prophet had aroused attention by going barefoot and lightly 
clad for some time before this event, and he was now moved to de- 
clare : ''So shall the king of Assyria carry away the captives of 
Egypt and the exiles of Ethiopia, young and old, naked and bare- 
foot, with bodies exposed." He adds that the people of Judah 
will say: ''Truly, if such is the plight of those to whom we 
looked, and to whom we fled for help to obtain safety from the 
king of Assyria, how can we ourselves hope to escape."^ 

Isaiah dissuaded from an alliance with Egypt and anticipated 
an Assyrian invasion of that country. Just yet matters did 
not proceed so far.- Hezekiah was able to save his face, and per- 
haps gave support to the Assyrian expedition. Merodach-Baladan 
was, not long after this, defeated and driven from Babylon. His 
brief success a few years later probably had no influence on the 
fortunes of Judah. 

The Egyptians, however, were not idle, and at the next change 
in the Assyrian throne trouble began to brew. The allied kings 
(for Egypt was now divided into several petty states) succeeded 
in enlisting the Palestinian peoples in an effort for freedom. 
The people of Ekron dethroned their king, Padi, because he re- 
fused to join the movement, and delivered him over to Hezekiah, 

1 2 Kings, 20^2"^^, which is repeated with some changes in Isaiah, 39. The 
section is of late date, apparently taken from a life of Isaiah. 

2 Isaiah, 20^. I have adopted Cheyne's translation in the edition of Haupt 
(polychrome). Tartan is the title of the Assyrian general. 



HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 243 

who kept him imprisoned at Jerusalem. Sennacherib, who had 
succeeded Sargon in 705, invaded Syria in his third campaign, 
which would be 701. He first conquered Sidon, where he placed 
a new king upon the throne. This blow was enough to satisfy 
some of the conspirators, and they hastened (Moab and Amnion 
are included) to make their submission. But Philistia and Judah 
held out. The Egyptians stood by their engagements so far as to 
send an army to the relief of Ekron. But in a battle fought at 
Eltekeh^ they received a decided check. Ekron was obliged 
to surrender, and the popular leaders were impaled outside the 
walls. It was then Judah' s turn. Hezekiah was compelled to 
deliver up his prisoner, who was again set in honour on his throne. 
The country was overrun by the Assyrians, forty -six walled towns 
suffered the horrors of siege and sack, over two hundred thousand 
people were carried into slavery, an enormous booty fell into the 
hands of the invader, Jerusalem itself was invested, though not 
regularly besieged. Hezekiah was obliged to pay a heavy fine 
and to send his daughters and concubines to Nineveh. Finally, 
his kingdom was reduced in size, a large part of his territory 
being taken away and added to adjoining states. 

This is Sennacherib's account.^ It is substantially confirmed 
by a paragraph in the book of Kings: '*In the fourteenth year 
of King Hezekiah came up Sennacherib, king of Assyria, against 
all the fortified cities of Judah. And Hezekiah sent to the king 
of Assyria at Lachish, saying: I have sinned; turn from me! 
Whatever thou shalt lay upon me I will bear. So the king of 
Assyria laid upon him three hundred talents of silver and thirty 
talents of gold. So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was in 
the House of Yahweh and in the palace treasury. At that time 
Hezekiah stripped the doors of the Temple and the pillars of 
the metal with which he himself had overlaid them and sent it to 
the king of Assyria." ^ 

The inaccuracy of the date in this account need not detain us. 

^The town is mentioned among those belonging to the southern settlement 
of the tribe of Dan, Josh. 19 **. 

"^ Keilinschr. Bibliothek, II, pp. 91-97. 

^2 Kings, 18 ^^-^6. Sennacherib states the sum exacted to be thirty talents 
of gold and eight hundred of silver. The discrepancy may have arisen from 
a confusion of the light and heavy talent. It should be noted that the con- 
struction of V. ^^ is awkward, and that some other king was probably orig- 
inally named as the decorator of the Temple. 



244 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Otherwise, the text is in agreement with the Assyrian claims, 
and its statements are not such as would be invented by a Judaite 
writer. The wonder was that Sennacherib stopped when he did, 
and this it is which impressed the contemporary witnesses of the 
event. Why did not the cruel and revengeful monarch go on with 
the siege of Jerusalem, take the city, and give it over to sack? 
Perhaps the abject submission of Hezekiah is sufficient to answer 
the question, especially as Jerusalem was a stronghold whose capt- 
ure would call for large expenditure of time and men. The As- 
syrian sources throw no light on the subject. Hebrew tradition 
has an answer which we now read both in the book of Kings and 
in the book of Isaiah.^ Two separate traditions seem here to have 
coalesced. One of these tells how the king sent one of his chief 
officers^ — Rab-shakeh is the Assyrian title — from Lachish which he 
was besieging, to Jerusalem. His purpose is to stir up the people 
against Hezekiah. This he does by scoffing openly at Hezekiah's 
confidence in Egypt and in Yahweh. Egypt he compares (not 
ineptly) to a deceitful staff which breaks when one leans upon it, 
to the pain and hurt of its bearer. As for the trust in Yahweh he 
claims that it is by command of Yahweh that he himself has in- 
vaded the country.^ The request of Hezekiah's officers that the 
colloquy may be carried on in a language unfamiliar to the lis- 
teners on the wall is disregarded, and the Assyrian makes a direct 
appeal to the Jerusalemites against their king. Isaiah's advice, 
long disregarded, now becomes important. We may well suppose 
that the clear-headed prophet commanded the respect of his king. 
In response to Hezekiah's message the promise of Yahweh is 
given : " Fear not for the words which thou hast heard, where- 
with the servants of the King of Assyria have taunted me. I am 
about to put a spirit into him, so that he shall hear a rumour and 
return to his own land, and I will cause him to fall by the sword." 
From the following verses we understand that the spirit is a spirit 

^2 Kings, 18^^-19", and Isaiah, 36, 37, with some differences of text. 

^ He alone is mentioned in Isaiah, 36. The author of Kings has expanded 
by adding the Tartan (general-in-chief) and the Rabsaris (chief eunuch ?). 
On the title Rab-shakeh see Zimmern in the Zeitsch. der D. M. G., LIII., 
p. 116 ff. 

^ The reference to Hezekiah's reforms, and the enumeration of the gods 
which the Assyrians have overcome may be attributed to the Hebrew writer 
(see Cheyne's translation in the Polychrome Bible). But the claim that 
Yahweh was on the side of the invader is not improbable. 



HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 245 

of panic, and that the report is a report of the Ethiopian ap- 
proach. But it is possible that the earhest writer had in mind 
reports of rebeUion in the eastern provinces. Something of this 
kind seems to have affected Sennacherib's movements. The as- 
sassination of the king, to which the author also alludes as a ful- 
filment of the prediction, is known not to have taken place for 
a number of years. 

A duplicate tradition follows, in which the message of Senna- 
cherib is put in the form of an unsealed (and therefore insulting) 
letter, and in answer to Hezekiah's prayers Isaiah is sent to him 
with the promise that the Assyrians shall not besiege the city. 
The sequel is the sudden destruction of the Assyrian army, 185,- 
000 soldiers being cut off in a single night. The two accounts 
seem to refer to the same event. According to one the sudden 
and unexpected retreat of the Assyrians was due to panic arising 
from rumours of disaffection or invasion. According to the other 
it was due to an act of God. 

We have a third tradition, given by Herodotus, from Egyptian 
sources. This is to the effect that Sennacherib's army, having ad- 
vanced as. far as Pelusium, was compelled to retreat by an army 
of mice, who gnawed the thongs of quivers and the strings of 
bows, so that the soldiers were defenceless, and retreat was neces- 
sary. The well-known connexion of the mouse with the pestilence 
argues in favour of making this account refer to the event which 
the Hebrew author represents as a sudden destruction of the 
army. We cannot suppose, however, that the Hebrew author 
borrowed from the Egyptian tradition, for the equation of the 
mice and the pestilence would be unfamiliar to him. It is equally 
improbable that the Egyptian tradition would consciously reduce 
the pestilence to terms of mice. All that is left to us is to admit 
that the suddenness of Sennacherib's return to Nineveh, was ac- 
counted for in the popular mind in three ways — the king's panic, 
the mice, and the pestilence.^ The deliverance can hardly have 
been so signal as the narrative assumes. Had the Assyrian army 
been literally destroyed by a pestilence, the whole of Palestine 
would have fallen away afresh, or else have come into the hands of 
the Egyptians. 

* Divine interposition was also assumed by the Egyptians, who regarded 
the mice as the army of their god, Horus — so, at least, Wiedemann inter- 
prets the statue which Herodotus connects with this event. 



246 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

It is held by some scholars that Sennacherib made another ex- 
pedition to the west, especially directed against Egypt, and that 
the Bibhcal accounts have united traditions which concern the 
two invasions.^ The indications of the inscriptions seem hardly 
definite enough to sustain the hypothesis, and it does not seem 
likely that Hezekiah would revolt again after the severe lesson he 
had received. 

We are able to associate some of Isaiah's most vigorous dis- 
courses with the campaign of Sennacherib, and thus to form 
some idea of the state of things in Jerusalem at the time. The 
prophet does not hesitate to repeat his earlier lament over the 
fall of Samaria and make it the text for a sharp arraignment of 
his own people ; the implication being that the sinfulness of Jeru- 
salem will bring about the same punishment which has been visited 
upon the sister city. And as in the former case the sins were not 
ritual offences but offences against common morality, so it is here: 

" These also stagger with wine 

And reel with strong drink : 
Priest and prophet 

They stagger with strong drink, 
They are overcome by wine, 

They stagger with strong drink. 
They reel in their vision, 

They totter when giving judgment. 
All tables are full of vomit, 

Filth — no end." 

It goes with this that these influential classes are impervious to 
correction. They regard the prophet as a doddering idiot fit to 
talk gibberish to children. This scoffing tone is not simply the 
result of their abandoned drunkenness. They are inflated with the 
false confidence of those who trust in political measures. Whatever 
may come they feel that they have taken effective precautions : 

" We have entered into a treaty with death 
And with Sheol we have made a compact ; 

When the scourging scourge comes on 
It shall not reach us ; 

For we have made a lie our trust 

And in falsehood we have taken refuge. " ' 

^ Winckler in his Alttestamentlicke Untersiichungen, p. 29 ff, His hy- 
pothesis is accepted by Benzinger in the Handkommentar. 

2 Isaiah, 28^5 ^ The preceding quotation is from 28 ^ ' ; compare also 5 ^2. 



HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 247 

The oriental delight in finesse has never been better expressed. 
Shrewdness and subtlety are the weapons with which they think 
to fight their battles. Doubtless the fine scheme of an alliance 
among the western nations and a united effort against Assyria 
was maturing. Under the influence of the party favourable to 
Egypt, Hezekiah has sent an embassy to that country in order 
to perfect the alliance. Through the desert which lies between 
them and their destination, " they carry their goods on the backs 
of asses, and their treasures on the humps of camels to a people 
that cannot profit, whose help is idle and vain."^ This embassy 
has been kept secret from the prophet and has taken the longer 
and more toilsome route through the desert so as not to attract 
the notice of the Assyrian officials in Philistia. But Isaiah has 
discovered it and heaps his scorn upon it. Not scorn only but 
open rebuke : 

" Woe to the rebellious sons, saith Yahweh ; 
Who carry out a plan that is none of mine. 
Who go down to Egypt but have not asked of me, 
To flee to the stronghold of Pharaoh, 

And to take refuge in the shadow of Egypt. 
But the stronghold shall be your shame, 

And the refuge your confusion. 
Though his princes be in Zoan, 
And his ambassadors in Hanes — 
Every one shall be put to shame by a people that does not help." " 

The end of all their pains will be to see the structure so labori- 
ously raised fall in hopeless ruin: 'Mike a bulge caused by a 
breach in a lofty wall, ready to fall in an instant, and to which 
breaking comes full suddenly — as one dashes an earthen pitcher 
to pieces shattering it ruthlessly." ^ 

^ Isaiah, 30^. Chapter 18 seems to imply that the Ethiopians responded to 
the overtures, sending an embassy in turn, 

^ Isaiah, 30 '-^. I have left out an unessential couplet, and have followed 
Cheyne's text. Some scholars connect these discourses with Sargon's cam- 
paign of 711. 

' In interpreting these discourses, I have assumed that Egypt is the nation 
intended by the Hebrew word Mifraifn. Winckler supposes that a North 
Arabian kingdom of Mucri, of which we have traces in the Assyrian inscrip- 
tions, is the country intended. While some of the Biblical passages which 
now speak ot Egypt may have originally referred to such a district in Ara- 



248 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

In an earlier crisis we have seen Isaiah dissuading from foreign 
alliances, and urging that attention should be paid to internal 
reform. There is no reason to suppose that his principle was any- 
different in this later struggle. The rebuker of counsellors and 
courtiers was not the spokesman of a mere political party. To 
do right was the only policy he cared to urge. Yahweh is a 
God of justice. He will apply the standard of righteousness to 
Jerusalem as one holds a plumb-line to a wall.^ Whatever does 
not conform to this standard shall be swept away. The true 
policy of people and rulers is to do right, trusting in the righteous- 
ness of Yahweh : ''By repenting and remaining quiet you shall 
be delivered ; in resting and in trusting shall your strength con- 
sist." =^ 

The restless ambition of the politicians found the counsel in- 
sipid. They were for a vigorous foreign policy, leaving ''parish 
concerns ' ' to take care of themselves. Isaiah saw that this was 
to invite calamity, and he foresaw the calamity in the shape of 
an Assyrian invasion. In one discourse we still read the woe 
pronounced in view of the impending siege. ^ In another we 
have a description of the invading army making its way from the 
north along the road familiar to all Israelites. The successive 
camping places are named till the enemy stands on the ridge just 
north of Jerusalem, and shakes his fist at the daughter of Zion.* 
In this anticipation the prophet takes up the thought of Amos. 
Yahweh is God of the whole earth and He uses the nations to 
carry out His plan. Isaiah adds that the human instrument is 
not conscious that he is carrying out Yahweh' s plan ; he is fol- 
lowing his own designs and knows nothing further : 

Ah, Assyrian, rod of my wrath, 

And staff of my indignation ! 

Against a godless nation do I send him, 

And against the objects of my wrath I give him command ; 

bia, this does not seem to be the case with those we have been considering. 
A full presentation of the case for Mugri may be found in the article " Miz- 
raim" in the Encyclop. Biblica, Vol. III. 

^ Isaiah, 28 ^^. The figure is not original with Isaiah, cf. Amos, 7 "'"^ 

^ Isaiah, 30 ^^. 

^ Isaiah, 29, which is obscure in places but which seems to assert that the 
siege will come after one year more. 

* Isaiah, 10 28-32. xhe prediction was not literally fulfilled, whether we 
refer it to B.C. 721 or 701. 



HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 249 

To take spoil and to seize booty, 

And to tread th.em down like mire of the street* 

But he does not so imagine 

And his mind reckons not so ; 

But only to destroy is in his mind, 

And to cut off nations not a few." ^ 

That in fact Assyria is carrying out the plan of Yahweh is 
enough for the prophet to know, and this is what he is here con- 
tent to affirm. It is evident, however, that if the purpose of the 
Assyrian is altogether selfish, he in turn will become obnoxious 
to the divine justice, and that his punishment will follow in due 
time. This thought, however, seems to have come only on later 
reflection. 

Isaiah's anticipation was fulfilled, as we are abundantly certified 
by Sennacherib's description of his campaign. The preacher of 
righteousness did not fail to improve the occasion. His dis- 
course gives a vivid picture of the country at the height of the 
invasion. The land was desolated, the cities burned with fire, 
the crops were devoured by strangers, Jerusalem was left a wreck, 
as the winter shows those frail shelters erected for the watchmen 
of the vineyards now falling to pieces. 

It is a common experience, however, that signal judgments of 
God often bewilder or harden rather than humble and convert 
the evil-doers. So it was in Jerusalem. In the very face of the 
calamity some gave themselves up to feasting and revelry. The 
city was a tumultuous city, a joyous town ; the people snatched at 
the last opportunity for sensuous enjoyment — to-?uorrow we die 
was their thought.^ Others, to be sure, resorted to religious ex- 
ercises in the hope that Yahweh might be pacified. The altars 
streamed with blood ; burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed 
beasts ascended in constant clouds of smoke ; the Temple courts 
were thronged with crowds who came to see the face of Yahweh. 
But in the prophet's eyes all this indicates persistence in the old 
error. All this ritual service is vain. Yahweh is weary of it : 
*' My soul hates your New Moons and your set feasts. 
When you spread out your hands I hide my eyes from you ; 
when you multiply prayers I do not hear." The only accept- 

^ Isaiah, 10^-'. 

^ Isaiah, 22. The chapter describes the bustle in the town in face of the 
expected siege, notice vv ^^^ 



250 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

able service is righteousness. These worshippers instead of pre- 
senting the blood that will propitiate, only bring hands red with 
crime. How can Yahweh fail to see what is going on ? The 
judges decide against the poor, the leaders lead the people astray ; 
instead of being correctors of crime they are its accomplices : 
'' Everyone loves a bribe and seeks after baksheesh ; the case of 
the widow does not come before them, they do not give judg- 
ment for the fatherless." ^ 

Did Isaiah anticipate the complete destruction of Judah ? We 
can hardly suppose so, though some things which he has left on 
record seem to indicate that he did. In the passages we have 
been considering he fixes his eye on the great fact that Yahweh 
is about to punish evil-doers. The weight of the blow will fall 
on His adversaries. Absorbed in this thought the prophet does 
not pause to consider a problem which afterward became acute, 
the problem of the destruction of the righteous with the wicked. 
Among the Judaites carried into slavery by Sennacherib must 
have been many to whom Isaiah's condemnation did not apply. 
The destroyer of a city by siege or storm does not discriminate 
between the righteous and the wicked. His sword devours one 
as well as the other. A Pentateuchal writer, apparently not 
much later than Isaiah, shows how some minds were already be- 
ginning to be exercised by this problem. He sets forth the fact 
that if Sodom is destroyed, the few righteous men who may be 
sojourning in it will meet an undeserved fate, and this does not 
accord with the justice of the Judge of all the earth.^ No such 
difficulty seems to have been present to the mind of Isaiah. 

The tendency of the earlier prophets to deal with the nation 
as a whole here shows itself. But there is evidence that Isaiah 
sometimes advanced beyond this point of view. His general 
theory of his work is strikingly set forth in the account of his 
inaugural vision, where he receives the command: ^' Go and say 
to this people : Hear on, but do not understand ; see on, but do 
not perceive ! Make the people's mind stupid and their ears 
dull, and plaster up their eyes — lest they see with their eyes and 

* Isaiah, i , from which I have quoted the greater part of this description, 
is now arranged as a single discourse, though perhaps combining what was 
spoken at different times. The situation which it so vividly describes can 
scarcely be any but the one at Sennacherib's invasion. 

«Gen. 18 23-33, 



HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 2$ I 

hear with their ears, and their mind apprehend and their health 
be restored." ^ We can interpret this language in only one way 
— the prophetic message would harden the people, and thereby 
make the impending destruction only the more certain. As if to 
leave no doubt on this score, the prophet declares that his mis- 
sion would last till the land should be wasted without inhabitant, 
and adds : '' Even were there left in it a tenth part, this also 
must be consumed like a terebinth or an oak of which, when it is 
felled, only a stump remains." ^ The stump is not here the source 
of new life ; it is the dead and useless fragment which must be 
dug up and burned to get it out of the way. The destruction of 
the nation must be complete. 

And yet — and yet there are the passages concerning the rem- 
nant, and these show that the hope of the believer refused to ac- 
cept so sweeping a statement. The judgment will be something 
more than a vindication of the divine justice. It will result in, 
or it will be followed by, a restitution. Yahweh will give His 
people officers like those of the good old days, so that Zion may 
again be called a city of right. More striking is the word 
spoken out of the midst of the scathing denunciation we have 
already considered, dating it in the time when conspiracy was 
rife : ''Behold I lay in Zion a stone, a tried stone, a precious 
foundation stone; he who trusts shall not be moved." ^ The 
confidence of the prophet that there would be some to trust in 
Yahweh, inspired him in naming his son — perhaps his first-born 
— A-remnant-will-turn. And this remnant began to realise its 
mission during Isaiah's own life, for he had a band of disciples 
to whose keeping he could intrust the message he had received.* 

The prophet's faith came out most fully at the hour of disaster. 

^Isaiah, 6^^ That the actual result of the preaching shows what the 
divine purpose was in commissioning the preacher, is quite in accord with 
Biblical thought. 

2 Isaiah, 6 "^ Some copyist, remembering the word of Job (14''"^) which 
pictures the stump as sprouting again, has inserted a clause in this passage 
to make it teach the same lesson. But the insertion was made so late that 
it had not become universally current when the Greek translation was made. 

3 Isaiah, 28 '^ — text of Cheyne and others. 

* Isaiah, 8 '^. In the same connexion the prophet declares that he and his 
sons are signs of what shall come to Israel. He alludes to the significance 
of his own name, ^^ Deliverance-of- Yahweh,'''' which of course is hopeful for 
the future. 



252 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

He had been most pessimistic when the people were most confi- 
dent, but when the crisis came he was the one most confident. 
He was sure that Jerusalem would not be given over to sack, and 
possibly even went so far as to expect the destruction of Assyria 
in immediate sequence to the invasion of Palestine. The im- 
pregnability of Zion as a fortress could hardly be the ground of 
such confidence. It was a religious faith that Yahweh was in 
the midst of His people, though they were so unworthy. 

That Yahweh would deliver His city, that He would punish 
the pride of Assyria, that He would bring back the good old 
times — a very rudimentary Messianic faith is this, but it is al- 
most all that we can attribute to Isaiah. We may suppose that 
the remnant who should repent, presented itself to his mind as a 
nation with a monarch at its head. This monarch would natu- 
rally be of the line of David. His rule would be distinguished 
by its justice, for the function of the king is to secure justice, 
protecting the poor from the rapacious nobles. Commanding 
the favour of Yahweh, such a reign would be a time of external 
peace and internal prosperity. So much is logically implied in 
the hope of the remnant, and some such picture of the future 
may have been drawn by the prophet. But the various Mes- 
sianic prophecies which we now read in his book have been 
inserted there by later hands. ^ 

In the hope that we may find additional light on the period, 
we turn to the prophet Micah, whom we know from a passage of 
Jeremiah to have been a contemporary of Hezekiah.^ The little 
book which has come down to us under his name is, however, 
only in part from his own hand, and that part has been disfigured 
by the errors of copyists. So far as we can use it with confi- 
dence, we find that it describes the state of things which is made 
known to us by Isaiah. The opening discourse was spoken in 
full view of the catastrophe which threatened Samaria, and at a 
time when the author expected the same fate to overtake Jerusa- 
lem. As in the earlier prophets, the reason is found in the sin- 
fulness of the people. No more severe indictment against the 
upper classes can be found than we here read : *' Hear, ye chiefs 
of Jacob and ye judges of the house of Israel ! You surely 

^ For example, the fine description of the ideal king in 1 1 ^"®. 
2 Jer. 26 '8*' gives this information, citing the most strikingof Micah's pre- 
dictions in order to commend the tolerance of Hezekiah. 



HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 253 

ought to know what is just ! Yet you hate good and love evil ; 
you who devour the flesh of my people, tear their skin from 
them, and break their bones." ^ This is the old story of rapacity 
as we read it in Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. The only thing origi- 
nal in Micah is the bitterness of the polemic against the popular 
prophets. The opposition of different sets of prophets to each 
other is no new thing ; it is at least as old as the time of Ahab, 
where Micaiah takes a position contradicting that of the majority, 
and where he supposes them deceived b}- a lying spirit. But our 
Micah has to contend with bitter and unscrupulous opposition, 
from prophets who have become mere time servers, pandering to 
the wishes of the community : " Thus says Yahweh against the 
prophets who cause my people to err, who, when they get some- 
thing to eat, say all is well, but declare a crusade against whoever 
does not put bread into their mouths." And with fine irony he 
says in another place that if one comes claiming the spirit and 
prophesying of wine and strong drink he will be an acceptable 
prophet.^ 

We may suppose that Micah, living in a country district, real- 
ised more vividly than Isaiah the corruption of the leading 
classes. He is also less hopeful than Isaiah. His outspoken de- 
nunciation of the sinfulness of Judah reaches its culmination in a 
sentence which his contemporaries regarded as treason : " There- 
fore on your account Zion shall be ploughed as a field, Jerusalem 
shall become ruins and the Temple mount a wooded hill." ^ 

It was this bold declaration, which is certainly more advanced 
than anything we have from Isaiah, which impressed succeed- 
ing generations. As we read these utterances w^e feel that we 
could wish to know more of the man — a champion of right, fear- 
less in denouncing oppression and wrong, and moreover who 
stayed himself on God when the world was all against him. But 
we are obliged to content ourselves with a mere glimpse. What 
little he gives us confirms the picture painted by Isaiah. 

If our supposition is correct, the lesson taught by Sennacherib 

^ Micah, 3 2 ^ The vigour of the passage has been weakened in the current 
text by scribal insertions. 

^/did., 2'\ cf. 35. 

' /did., 3 ^2. These first three chapters of Micah are all that can be ascribed 
with certainty to the Micah who was contemporary with Isaiah. The rest of 
the book is for the most part post-exilic, as was shown by Stade, Zeitschrift 
f. d. Alltest. Wissensch. I., pp. 161-172. 



254 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

was taken to heart by Hezekiah. The experiences of the year 
701 must have thoroughly discredited the Egyptian alhance, and 
must also have greatly enhanced the influence of Isaiah. The 
Biblical account indicates that about this time the king had per- 
sonal reasons to esteem the prophet. In a severe illness which 
befell him, the prophet came to him with a message of hope 
which was followed by his recovery. It can scarcely be that 
such an experience would not affect the king's attitude toward 
the prophet. We may plausibly suppose that during the period 
which followed, Hezekiah, at the suggestion of Isaiah, undertook 
the religious reforms which have been already described. 

The Biblical writer indicates that the king devoted his closing 
years to internal improvements, especially to the water supply of 
Jerusalem. The reservoir and canal mentioned in this account^ 
may be plausibly identified with the tunnel which leads from the 
so-called Fountain of the Virgin to the Pool of Siloam. The in- 
scription discovered in this tunnel in our own times gives no clue 
to the age of the work. But there is nothing in its wording or in 
the form of its letters to prevent attributing it to Hezekiah. Of 
Isaiah's later years we know nothing — or rather, we do not know 
that he long survived the great Assyrian crisis. The tradition 
that he was murdered by Manasseh has no early authentication. 

Hezekiah was succeeded by his son, Manasseh (692-639), of 
whose long reign the historian has little to relate. Orthodox 
public opinion saw in him the incarnation of wickedness. " He 
did evil in the sight of Yahweh, like the abominations of the 
nations whom Yahweh dispossessed before the sons of Israel. He 
rebuilt the High-places which Hezekiah, his father, had destroyed, 
and he raised altars to Baal, and made an Ashera as Ahab, King 
of Israel, had done, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and 
served them. . . . And he offered his son in the fire, and 
practised augury and magic, and made talismans and charms." ^ 
The indictment is certainly heavy enough, and those who drew it 
up could understand the king's action only as the manifestation 
of sheer depravity. For us, while it may not be true that tout 
cotnprendrey c' est tout par domier, there may be mitigating cir- 
cumstances. 

* 2 Kings, 20 21 ; cf. Benzinger, Hebrdische Archdologie, p. 53 f. 
2 2 Kings, 21 '^-^. I have quoted the gist of the passage, which shows the 
marks of different hands. 



HEZEklAH AND MANASSEH 2^^ 

We have seen that Hezekiah introduced rehgions reforms, prob- 
ably under the influence of Isaiah. No such reforms are ever 
made without encountering opposition. When made by the 
royal power they are carried through by force, rising often to vio- 
lence. The directions of the Deuteronomist show how the power 
of the state was invoked to carry out the programme of reform. 
Violence begets violence. The destruction of the Nehushtan 
doubtless outraged the feelings of many a conservative Judaite. 
The time-honoured symbol of Yahweh was associated with the 
history of the people from the time of Moses. Why should it be 
ruthlessly destroyed by this innovating king ? Such a question 
must have been asked in Jerusalem, and even in the court itself. 
If we may judge by the present condition of society in the East, 
the women of the palace were devoted to the ancient supersti- 
tions. It is, in fact, a general rule that older rehgious rites and 
notions are held longest by women — the necromancers and dealers 
in charms or talismans are usually women according to the Old 
Testament records. Manasseh came to the throne very young. 
It is natural that he should be much under the influence of the 
harem. It is likely, also, that the courtiers of Hezekiah were 
many of them out of sympathy with his reforms. The crown 
prince in any court is likely to fall into the hands of a clique be- 
longing to the opposition party, and it is not extravagant to sup- 
pose this case an example of the rule. 

On the part of the court ladies, personal resentment at Isaiah 
may have been a motive leading them to prejudice the young 
prince against him. The prophet, in denouncing the, vanity and 
corruption of his times, did not spare the women of Jerusalem : 

" Because Zion's daughters are haughty, 
And walk with neck thrown back, and leering eyes, 
Tripping along as they go, and making a chime with their anklets — 
With scabs will the Lord incrust the crowns of their heads, 

Yahweh will expose their shames ; 
Instead of perfume there shall be rottenness, 

And instead of a girdle a rope, 
Instead of artful curls, baldness, 

And instead of a flowing mantle, girding of sackcloth."* 

* Isaiah, 3 '*• ^'^' ^*. I have followed Cheyne's translation, only substituting 
a pronounceable name for the unpronounceable one Jhvh. The passage in 
our Bibles has been expanded by some ladies' tailor, who has inserted a 
long catalogue of finery. 



256 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

So indelicate a denunciation could not fail to offend the smart 
set. They remembered, also, an earlier message of the prophet, 
pronouncing a woe upon Judah because a boy was their governor 
and women ruled over them. Occasions of misunderstanding are 
plenty in the court of a petty kingdom, and Manasseh may have 
been the victim of his circumstances. All the influences by 
which he had been surrounded from his youth were reactionary, 
and it is not strange that he should view himself as the restorer of 
Judah' s ancient worship. The Nehushtan could not be restored 
because it had been wholly destroyed. But the local sanctuaries 
could be repristinated. They may not have been removed by 
Hezekiah, but after the sweeping Assyrian desolations, they may 
have been discredited in comparison with the Temple, which had 
been so remarkably preserved. The Baal altars, mentioned by 
the historian, may have been these same High-places which had 
been adopted by the Israelites from their predecessors. The 
Ashera, here so strangely associated with Ahab, was only the 
sacred pole found at every altar of Yahweh. Whether it had been 
removed by Hezekiah may be left an open question. That it 
became obnoxious to the reformers from this time on is evident 
from the bitterness of the Deuteronomist. 

Whatever of magic and necromancy had been discouraged by 
Hezekiah now came again to the front. The flourishing con- 
dition of these arts is testified by the Deuteronomist. These 
superstitions are connected with the worship of the demons, fair- 
ies, cobolds or jinn, with which the earlier Semitic religions (like 
all others) swarm. The sacrifice of the king's son is a return to 
ancestral custom, as we have noticed in the case of Ahaz. Jere- 
miah speaks of such sacrifices as common in his time, and Ezekiel 
regards them as a part of Israel's early religion. Their hold on 
the piety or the superstition of the people must have been very 
strong. 

All the measures thus far considered are a part of a conservative 
reaction — a return to what had always been Israel's practice. 
Another item does not stand on the same plane with these, 
but is easily explicable — the restoration of altars to the host of 
heaven. Sun, moon, planets, and constellations are objects of 
adoration in the religion of Assyria and Babylonia. As a faithful 
vassal of Assyria, Manasseh was bound to honour these gods. Ahaz 
had introduced and fostered their worship. Hezekiah had ap- 



HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 25/ 

parently discountenanced it so far as he dared. But Manasseh 
encouraged it and gave it renewed prominence. 

What he did was no more than had been done by Solomon. 
But times had changed. Though the prophets had seemed to 
speak to deaf ears, yet inreahty their message had succeeded in 
reaching a part of the people. Consciences were more sensitive 
than of yore, and the uneasy feeling that Yahweh was a jealous 
God brought forward protests against Manasseh' s measures. Men 
like Isaiah and Micah left disciples. We are justified in supposing 
them united in a party of opposition, weak indeed, but contain- 
ing the germs of larger things. Religious opposition to the crown, 
however, was political opposition, and political opposition was 
treason. It is easy to interpret the declaration of the Book of 
Kings, therefore, where it says that Manasseh shed innocent 
blood very much, and filled Jerusalem from end to end with 
blood. ^ This vigorous policy seems to have silenced open 
opposition. We hear of no prophet who stood up to make public 
protest.^ The silence of our records on this head may be an 
unsafe guide. Whatever was done or not done in the way of 
public speaking, the prophetic party cannot have been idle, and 
it is reasonable to suppose that their activity found a congenial 
field in literature. The union of the two works which treat the 
patriarchal history (J and E) is dated by some critics in the 
reign of Manasseh. The legends of the great prophets who fought 
on the side of Yahweh against the encroachments of Baal would 
now have a special meaning and interest. The works of Amos, 
Hosea, and Isaiah would be cherished and studied. And already 
the Deuteronomist was collecting the traditions of Moses' legis- 
lation, and meditating a new edition of them, enlarged by 
stringent commands against Canaanitish heathenism. But we 
are obliged to content ourselves with conjectures as to what was 
going on in secret. In the open we see only the complete restor- 
ation of the old stage of belief and ritual. 

The reign seems to have been a time of peace with foreign 
nations. Assyria was unbroken in strength, and Manasseh was 
willing to pay his tribute, thereby purchasing peace. His rehg- 

^2 Kings, 21^^. Jeremiah has the same thing in mind; "Your sword 
has devoured your prophets " (Jer. 2 ^°). 

^ Possibly Micah's answer to the question concerning child sacrifice (Micah 
6 ^ may be as late as Manasseh 's time. 



2 58 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ious enactments were in themselves a declaration of complete 
submission to Nineveh. Egypt, moreover, was weak and of- 
fered no temptation to revolt. Esarhaddon, who came to the 
throne in 680 B.C., was, in fact, able to carry his arms against that 
country, and to capture Memphis, after which the whole kingdom 
made its submission. This event had been preceded by the re- 
duction of Sidon, and by a successful campaign against the Arabs 
of the Sinaitic peninsula. The only mention which Esarhaddon 
makes of Manasseh is in the list of ''twenty-two kings of the 
Hittite country who furnished timber" for the great armoury 
then building at Nineveh.^ 

Ashurbanipal, the next king of Assyria, was also involved in 
war with Egypt. Tirhaka, king of Ethiopia (that is. Nubia), 
descended the Nile to Memphis, expelled the Assyrian governors, 
and proclaimed himself King of Egypt. The Assyrian army, 
marching to regain its province, was this time reinforced by Pal- 
estinian troops. Among the kings who furnished contingents, we 
find again the name of Manasseh.^ This expedition advanced as 
far as Thebes^ and a second expedition, rendered necessary by a 
revolt of the Egyptians not long after, was equally successful. 
The practical demonstration of the weakness of Egypt must have 
strengthened the hold of Assyria on its subjects in the West. A 
further object-lesson was the repetition by Esarhaddon of the col- 
onisation of Samaria, to which allusion has been made. All in all, 
the policy of fidelity to Assyria was justified by worldly wisdom. 

The author of the book of Chronicles knows indeed of an at- 
tempted rebellion of Manasseh, of his capture and transportation 
to Babylon, where he repented and was restored to his kingdom.* 
The fruits of his repentance are also recounted to us in the way 
of religious reforms in Jerusalem. In view of the silence of the 
earlier sources, this account must be received with caution. 

^Keilinschr. Bibliothek, II, pp. 137, 149. In the hst we find Tyre, 
Edom, Gaza, Edom, and Moab. The expedition against Sidon {Ibid., p. 125) 
seems to have affected that city alone. Winckler adds that Manasseh fur- 
nished troops for the Arabian expedition as well as for the one against 
Egypt, both which he dates 671 B.C.; cf. Keilinschriften und Altes Testa- 
vietit,^ p. 90. 

"^Keilinschr. Bibliothek, II, pp. 161, 329. 

^ 2 Chron. 33^^'^^. The mention of Babylon which formerly made a diffi- 
culty does so no longer, because we know that Ashurbanipal spent a great 
deal of time in that city. 



HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 259 

The brief reign of Anion is scarcely an incident in Old Testa- 
ment history. All that the Hebrew historian tells us of him is 
that he walked in all the ways of his father, and served the idols 
which his father served. Besides this we learn only that he was 
assassinated in his palace, as the result of a plot of his officers. 
Whether this was a harem intrigue in favour of some other mem- 
ber of the royal family will never be known with certainty. The 
statement that the people of the land (that is, the people at large 
in distinction from the court officials) smote the conspirators 
and set Josiah on the throne, implies strong opposition between 
them and the court. It is possible that Josiah was already 
known as a member of the prophetic party. 



CHAPTER XIV 

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 

What was said above about the influence of the harem upon 
a young prince would seem to apply with equal force to Josiah, 
for he was only eight years old when he came to the throne 
(B.C. 637). Yet Josiah was wholly in the hands of the reform- 
ing party. .We might account for this partly by recaUing what 
was said about the crown prince being in the party of opposition. 
But we do not know that Josiah was the heir apparent. He 
seems to have been made king by a popular movement in oppo- 
sition to a strong party at court. While Manasseh was violently 
reintroducing ancient abuses, it is reasonable to suppose that 
some even of his own family were unwilling to go his lengths. 
The reformers, making quiet propaganda among the people, had 
means of approaching the court. The blood of the martyrs is 
the seed of the Church, and from those put to death for their 
fidelity to their convictions some voice might penetrate as far as 
the king's harem. The priest Hilkiah seems to have been one 
of the reformers, and we may suppose him one of the thoughtful 
men to whom the writings of Isaiah and the story of his life 
would make a strong appeal. 

We are told nothing of the reign of Josiah till his eighteenth 
year, when there occurred an event of the first importance not 
only for his time but for all succeeding ages. " This was the find- 
ing of the Book of Instruction.^ The Biblical account is to the 
effect that in Josiah' s eighteenth year, he sent his secretary, Shaph- 
an, to take account of the money in the collection-box in the 
Temple — we have already learned of the arrangement made by 
Jehoash.^ Shaphan was to act as inspector, while Hilkiah made 

^ This is the name by which the book is called in the Biblical account 
(2 Kings, 22 ^-^^), and we may conveniently retain the title. The later Jews 
applied the same name {Sepher ha-Tord) to the whole Pentateuch, which, 
however, we may call the Book of the Law in order to avoid confusion. 

^2 Kings. 12 *-^^ The account of the finding of the book is in 2 Kings, 
22 3-20 

260 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 261 

his reckoning. After the main business was attended to, Hilkiah 
informed Shaphan that he had found the Book of Instruction in 
the House of Yahweh — in the Temple proper, would be the nat- 
ural understanding of the words. How the book came to be in 
this particular place, or how it came to be found at this particu- 
lar juncture, is not told. We may conjecture that the priest had 
been inspecting the repairs, or making ready for them ; that 
he had been taking an inventory of the store chambers ; that 
he had been cleansing the Holy Place — plenty of occasions 
exist ; and there seems to be no reason to doubt the statement 
that he found the book. It was an event unexpected to him- 
self, and not a mere subterfuge to get the book into the king's 
hands. ^ 

Shaphan read the book and was so much impressed by it that 
he brought it to the king and read it to him. There is no ques- 
tion of illegibility or of difficulty in decipherment, such as the 
scribe would have found had the book been of great age. The 
book was of no great size, as we may conclude from its being 
read twice after a considerable part of the day had passed in 
regulating the money matters of the Temple. To all appearance 
there was still time, the same day, for an embassy to Huldah 
and for a third reading. 

The effect upon the king was immediate and pronounced. He 
rent his clothes in grief and terror, and at once took steps to dis- 
cover the mind of Yahweh : ^' Inquire of Yahweh for me and for 
the people and for Judah concerning this book, for great is the 
wrath of Yahweh which is kindled against us." To ascertain 
the mind of Yahweh a distinguished embassy was sent to Hul- 
dah, a prophetess, wife of one of the king's officers. She gave a 
response confirming the king's fear, and denouncing the idolatry 
and disobedience of the people. In our present text she is made 
also to declare that punishment is inevitable, but that it will be 
delayed till after Josiah's death because he himself is right- 
minded toward Yahweh. There is reason to suppose that this 
form of the response is due to a later writer, who wished to make 
the prophecy conform to the event. Originally the response 
must have been such as to encourage the king with the hope 
that the door of repentance was still open. The energy with 
which the king went to work to enforce the commands of the 
* Some suppose that it was such a subterfuge. 



262 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

book snows that he had such a hope. But hope is what is cut 
off by the response as now worded. 

If anything was to be done it must be done at once. An as- 
sembly of notables was therefore called without delay. The king 
took his stand on the raised platform — the one which he regu- 
larly occupied in observing the ritual. He first read the book ; 
then speaking for himself and as representative of the people, he 
registered a vow that they would carry out the ordinances and 
commands therein contained. All who were present ''stood to 
the covenant" probably by a solemn Amen. The zeal of the 
quickened consciences made itself manifest in the immediate de- 
struction of whatever in the Temple savoured of idolatry. 

The work did not stop at the Temple. The details are worth 
noticing as showing how much of heathenism was extant in Judah, 
a part of it imported by Manasseh, but the most of it claiming 
great antiquity. A beginning was made with the Ashera — the 
sacred pole which had stood by the altar of Yahweh from time im- 
memorial. Of its origin and purpose we are in ignorance. Until 
this time it seems not to have been obnoxious to the religious 
leaders except as they rejected the whole machinery of worship. 
Now the people became suddenly enlightened and cut it down. 
It was brought out to the Kidron valley and burned, and the 
ashes were scattered on the graves of the common people.* 
These graves were of course ''unclean," and the sacredness of 
the ancient emblem inhering even in its ashes could be effectually 
destroyed only in some such way as this. Next the people tore 
down the chambers of the Qedeshifji, the ministers to unnatural 
lust, which are mentioned in connection with the Temple in the 
time of Asa.^ Our historian then mentions the High-places — 
the ancient sanctuaries outside Jerusalem so often alluded to with 
disapproval. These country sanctuaries were attacked from Geba 
to Beersheba — that is, from the northern to the southern bound- 
ary of Judah — and destroyed. Their venerable character may 
be realised when we recall the story of the consecration of Beer- 
sheba by Abraham and Isaac. The altars were destroyed, but as 
these sanctuaries were dedicated bona fide to Yahweh, their priests 

*2 Kings, 23. The account is over-full, owing to later expansion Verse* 
seems to join directly to v.^. 

^ I Kings, 15 ^2 Asa's reform, whatever it may have been, was evidertly 
temporary, 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 263 

were brought to Jerusalem and enrolled in the staff of the Tem- 
ple. The king's intention to put them on a par with the regu- 
lar Temple priesthood was foiled by the opposition of the latter, 
who found possession nine points of the law. Our account says 
the country priests did not go up to the altar though they ate 
unleavened cakes among their brethren. This means that they 
formed a second and inferior order of priests.^ 

Next came a thorough cleaning up in the vicinity of Jerusalem. 
The altar in the valley of Hinnom, just under the city walls — 
notorious as the place where children were sacrificed to Moloch 
— was thoroughly desecrated in order to put an end to this horrid 
rite.^ In the gate of the Temple was a building for the horses 
sacred to the sun, ''which the kings of Judah had consecrated." 
The horses were taken away, and the chariots which were conse- 
crated to the same service were destroyed. The roof altars of 
which we have heard in connexion with Ahaz and Manasseh, 
were carried away and dumped in the Kedron valley. Solomon's 
sanctuaries erected to the various gods of his subjects, and de- 
signed to secure their favour, could not escape the fate of the 
others. So great was the king's zeal that he went beyond his 
own proper territory and overthrew the celebrated altar at Bethel.' 
That these proceedings did not evoke protest and opposition 
cannot be supposed, though the wholesale slaughter of priests of 
which we read at the close of the account, seems to be the inven- 
tion of a later time. 

To show that the reform was not to be merely negative, the 
king ordered the observance of the Passover, ''according to 
what is written in this Book of the Covenant." It is startling 
to read that no passover like this had been observed from the 

^ The precarious nature of their tenure is described by an author of about 
this time who sends to Eli (representative of these priests of the Bavioth) a 
message to the effect that his descendants will beg the priest of their day to 
give them employment for a pie»e of bread ( i vSam. 2 ^^). 

^ That Moloch was identified in the popular mind with Yahweh the king 
(Melech) must be conceded. The sacrifice of a son by Ahaz, and also by 
Manasseh, has already come under our notice. Had these been intended for 
a foreign god the fact would probably have been noted. Compare Pro- 
fessor Moore's article " Molech " in the Encycl. Biblica. 

'This seems to be asserted in the original account. A later hand has found 
in this incident the fulfilment of a prophecy made to Jeroboam I. And 
another supplementer has given into Josiah's hand all the sanctuaries of 
all Samaria (2 Kings, 23 ^^ 0- 



264 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

days of the Judges. What the author means is that a passover 
such as is enjoined in the just found book was something new. 
A reHgious festival of some kind at, or near, the vernal equinox, 
seems to belong to primitive Semitic rehgion. What it was 
that made it seem a new observance is part of a larger inquiry 
to which we must now address ourselves — can we identify the 
Book of Instruction, which here enters into the history, and which 
had so marked an eifect on king and people ? 

If the book has survived, it must be found within the bounds 
of the Pentateuch. For this is the only part of the Hebrew Bible 
which contains statutes and ordinances such as are here de- 
scribed. We may be sure, however, that it was not the whole 
of these five books, though the Jews call these the Book of In- 
struction still. It is doubtful whether in the early time these 
were ever written on a single roll — the division into five is de- 
cisive testimony to the size of an ancient book. Moreover, this is 
too large a book to be read through at a sitting, nor could it be 
read aloud twice or thrice in a single day. The account im- 
plies a book in which threatenings are prominent and calculated 
to make a vivid impression at once. For these reasons it has 
long been held that the Book of Instruction must be some part 
of the book which we call Deuteronomy. It can hardly be the 
whole of that book, for this shows traces of later expansion. 
The central chapters, what we may call the kernel of the book, 
culminating in the great chapter of blessings and curses — the 
twenty-eighth — is precisely the book to answer all the require- 
ments. It is eminently a book of instruction ; it contains stat- 
utes and ordinances ; it can be read in a short time ; it is writ- 
ten in the style of the personal appeal, such as must go to the heart 
of an impressionable hearer; it contains repeated threats of judg- 
ment, and ends with a frightful denunciation of Yahweh's curse 
upon those who disobey. Nothing could be more impressive to 
the religious mind than this concluding denunciation : 

^' But if thou dost not hsten to the voice of Yahweh thy God, 
then all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee: 
Cursed shalt thou be in the city and cursed in the country ; 
cursed shall be thy basket and thy bread bowl ; cursed the fruit 
of thy body and the fruit of thy ground ; the fruit of thy kine 
and thy ewes ; cursed shalt thou be in thy coming and in thy 
going ; Yahweh will send upon thee curse and confusion and evij 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 265 

spell in whatever thou puttest thy hand to, till thou be destroyed. 
The heavens over thy head shall become copper, and the earth 
under thy feet shall become iron. Yahweh will change the rain 
of thy land to sand and dust. Yahweh will let thee be smitten 
before thine enemy — thou wilt go out before him one way but 
flee before him seven ways ; and thou shalt become an object of 
abuse to all the nations of the earth. The stranger who sojourns 
as a client with thee shall keep rising above thee, while thou art 
sinking lower and lower. He will lend to thee but thou wilt not 
be able to lend to him.^ All these curses shall come upon thee 
and follow thee and overtake thee until thou art destroyed, be- 
cause thou hast not hearkened to Yahweh thy God, to keep His 
commandments and His statutes which He commanded thee ; 
and they shall be signs and portents in thee and in thy seed 
for ever. ' ' 

When we remember the extraordinary power which a curse 
has — and especially a written curse — upon the minds of men at 
a certain stage of religious development, we can understand how 
these sentences affected the young king. What is now our chief 
concern is to notice that the book which contains these curses 
is exactly the book required by the conditions of our narrative. 
The evidence becomes very strong when we compare the reforms 
made by Josiah with the demands of the book before us.^ The 
predominant puipose of the author is to do away with the relig- 
ious errors of Judah, by concentrating all public worship at the 
one sanctuary in Jerusalem. The ancient sanctuaries had re- 
mained in honour among the people ever since the settlement in 
Canaan. The Baal there worshipped had become fully identified 
with the God of Israel. But their Canaanitish origin was still 
manifest to the reflecting mind, as we see in the classic example 

^ The tyranny exercised by the creditor over the debtor in the East, which 
gives point to this clause, is abundantly illustrated in the Bible. I may re- 
mark that in this quotation (Deut. 28^^^"- '^'^-'^^' ^^-*^) I am giving only what 
the most recent commentator designates as part of the original book. 

2 1 mean the original Book of Deuteronomy, which contained at any rate 
chapters 12-19, 26 and 28 of the present book. A composition of this kind 
easily lends itself to expansion, and many hands have been busy in making 
the book as we now have it. The reader may consult Driver's volume in 
the International Critical Commentary, the article of Professor Moore in the 
Encyclopcedia Biblica, Carpenter and Battersby in their volumes on The 
Hexateuch (1900), and the commentaries of Steuernagel and Bertholet. 



266 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

of Hosea. The prophets and their pupils were advancing in the 
knowledge of Yahweh, and the old nature worship, though offered 
to Him, was become repulsive to them. The author of the new 
book proposed a novel remedy — that the worship of the one God 
should be Umited to one sanctuary. This stands at the head of 
his commands and ordinances: "You must not do as we do 
to-day, every one what he thinks good. . . . Beware lest 
thou bring thy burnt offerings at every sanctuary that thou seest. 
Only at the place which Yahweh shall choose in one of thy 
tribes shalt thou bring thy burnt offerings, and perform all that I 
command thee." The chapter repeats this exhortation to re- 
dundancy.^ It was something that needed to be emphasised, if 
it were to be carried through. The intention is to abrogate the 
earlier permission to build altars at every place where Yahweh 
revealed Himself,^ and the language is purposely chosen to show 
this. The author is not unmindful of the practical difficulties 
that will arise, and he makes provision for them.' 

The main purpose of the book, therefore, was carried out in 
the reforms of Josiah. The old sanctuaries were thoroughly de- 
stroyed, though so far as they were recognised as belonging to 
Yahweh their priests were brought to Jerusalem — which also is 
specifically provided in the book.* 

The opposition between Yahweh and the other gods was known 
in Israel from a very early time. Elijah had energetically 
preached that fidelity to Yahweh excluded the worship of Baal, 
and in this all the prophets had agreed. But the Deuteronomist 
is the first to make this principle the basis of severe practical regu- 
lations. He commands specifically that any Israelite who entices 
to the worship of any god but Yahweh shall be put to death. 
He shall not be spared — he shall be delivered over — by his 
nearest kin. His crime shall not be condoned, even in the face 
of the most remarkable prodigies wrought in his favour. Like- 

^ Deut. 12^'^^; notice also vv. is- 25. 

2 Ex. 2o2+. 

' The permission to slay animals for food elsewhere than at an altar, was 
necessitated by the limitation of the sanctuaries to one. It was hardly less 
startling than the first regulation. Up to this date it is probable that every 
act of slaying an animal for food was an act of sacrifice. 

* " When a Levite comes from any of thy towns where he lives as a client, 
he may come as he desires to the place which Yahweh shall choose — he shall 
have the same portion" — iS^''. 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 26/ 

wise the Israelite city which tolerates the worship of any but the 
one God of Israel is to be put to the sword, and all that is in it — 
human beings and property — is to be utterly destroyed.^ 

The effect of these directions is seen in Josiah's measures in the 
Temple. The state policy of Ahaz and Manasseh had crowded 
this building with other gods. Now these had to go — the roof 
altars erected to the planets and constellations, the horses of the 
sun at the entrance to the court. The old Solomonic sanctuaries 
in the city or its suburbs could not escape. The hatred of idol, 
atrous symbols was extended by the Deuteronomist to the ashera 
and ma(feba, which had been accepted as innocent accompani- 
ments of the altar of Yahweh from early times. ^ Very likely they 
were Canaanitish in origin, in which case the proscription is in- 
telligible.^ It was effective in that it secured the destruction of 
the ashera in the Temple as already recounted. It is scarcely 
necessary to call attention to the prohibition of child sacrifice 
and of necromancers, or to the king's measures based thereon.* 
The Passover, however, should have a moment's attention. 
What makes the festival a new festival is the command that it 
shall be observed (being a sacrifice) at the place which Yahweh 
shall choose, and the prohibition of its observance in any other 
place. The nomad sacrifice of the firstlings of the flock had 
been a household festival observed by each family in its own 
home. This is clear from the custom of sprinkling or smearing 
the blood on each doorway. Now it is made a great national 
ceremony. The men of Israel must all appear at Jerusalem and 
there alone may the lamb be slain, ^' in the place which Yahweh 
shall choose, to make His name dwell there." ^ It is as if the 
American Thanksgiving from being a family reunion festival 
should be changed to a great pilgrimage to some national sanct- 
uary. It would be practically a new observance. This is what 
the author of Kings means by the Passover's not having been 
observed for centuries. 

'Chapter 13 is devoted to this subject. 

2 The simplest explanation of these much discussed objects is that the 
ashera represents the sacred tree, while the ma9ceba is the old stone fetish of 
which we have a plain example in Jacob's consecration of Bethel (Gen. 28 ^'^-'^^). 

^ The author is not conter.t with directing the destruction of Canaanitish pil- 
lars and poles, but forbids their erection at the altar of Yahweh (Deut. 16 ^'^). 

* Deut. i8'°^ compare 2 Kings, 23 2*. 

5 Deut., 16 1-8. 



268 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

These considerations are sufficient to show that the Book of 
Deuteronomy (in its earhest form) was the book found by 
Hilkiah. It is possible we may even recover from it the form of 
the covenant entered into at the sacred assembly called by the 
king: " Thou hast declared Yahweh this day to be thy God, so 
as to walk in His ways and to keep His statutes and His judg- 
ments, and to listen to His voice. And Yahweh has declared 
thee this day to be His own people." ^ 

It remains to inquire how so timely a book came to be in the 
place where it could accomplish the most good. On this point 
we have no direct information, but we may be allowed a conject- 
ure that has some probability. Such a book must have originated 
with the prophetic party, and it probably originated during the 
times of persecution under Manasseh. The men who, in the time 
of Hezekiah, had hoped and worked for religious reform, were 
later debarred (as we have seen) from public activity. That 
they would naturally turn to literature we have already con- 
jectured. Isaiah himself had a circle of disciples with whom he 
left the written monuments of his activity.^ Secret societies have 
always existed in the East, and such a society would be the nat- 
ural result of Manasseh's severity. We may imagine the little 
company of earnest men feeding their souls, during those evil 
days, on the written word. Nor would they content themselves 
with a life of silent contemplation. The strong faith that a better 
day was coming would lead them to plan for its coming. One 
or more of them would be moved to put on record a programme 
for the future. That it should contemplate more radical reforms 
than those instituted by Hezekiah is only what we should expect. 

The idea most strongly borne in upon this company of faith- 
ful men was that the popular religion was of Canaanitish origin. 
This was not only a theological deduction from the idea of 
Yahweh's righteousness, and from the discord between this and 
what went on at the sanctuaries. It had historical justification 
and it had been preached by the earlier prophets — most distinctly 
by Hosea. The people might call the genius loci of any particular 
High-place by the name Yahweh. Nevertheless, they were wor- 
shipping a Baal. The root of all Israel's evils was this amalga- 

1 Deut. 26 iT-^». 

'^ "I will bind up the admonition and seal the instruction among my dis- 
ciples "—Is. 8 16 (Cheyne). 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 269 

mation between them and the Canaanites. The only way in which 
the evils could have been avoided was by the extermination of the 
older inhabitants of the land. The author finds a drastic way 
of expressing this, when, putting himself in the place of Israel's 
venerable lawgiver, he commands not only the complete destruc- 
tion of all Canaanitish objects of religion, but the extermination 
of the Canaanites themselves. They are to be ''devoted " — an 
act which compels a complete destruction.^ If such a policy of 
thorough shocks us, we may remember that its advocates had the 
example of Manasseh before their eyes. 

It was not the old Baal worship alone that wearied the souls of 
these faithful men. Survivals in the time of Ezekiel show that 
the primitive totemism was found even in the Temple. The par- 
tisans of Egypt had introduced the pantheon of that country. 
The Assyrian gods introduced by Ahaz may have been banished 
by Hezekiah, but they had returned in full force under Manasseh. 
Jeremiah describes the whole population engaged in a festival to 
the Queen of Heaven — probably the Babylonian Ishtar — whose 
consort or paramour, Tammuz, was bewailed by the women even 
in the Temple courts down to the last days of Jerusalem.^ The 
sun worship indicated by the horses and chariots already noticed, 
is also described by Ezekiel. We cannot wonder that men who 
had absorbed Hosea's idea of Israel's exclusive relation to Yah- 
weh,' should be both indignant and sick at heart. If Yahweh 
was Israel's husband, who had cared for her in the past, who had 
led her through the wilderness, who had given her the land of 
Canaan, filling her heart with food and gladness — if at the same 
time He was a jealous God, not tolerating rivals or partners* — then 
it was plain that Israel (now represented by Judah) was in a per- 

^ Deut. 20 ^^^8. What this devotion or ban (Hebrew herem) means is set 
forth in the story of Jericho and its conquest in the book of Joshua. Such 
a religious act is not uncommon in early warfare. 

* Jer. 7 ^'^ ^ which describes the worship of the Queen of Heaven, seems to 
belong in the reign of Josiah. Stade's ingenious endeavour to show that 
the Host of Heaven is meant, has not met with general acceptance. On 
Tammuz (the Adonis of Greek myth) see Ezek. 8 ^*. 

' The figure of a marriage is a staple in the preaching of Jeremiah and of 
Ezekiel. 

* The earliest assertion that Yahweh is a jealous God seems to be in J — 
Ex. 34^*. In the earlier time — before Elijah at any rate — the people seem 
to have worshipped many Gods without consciousness of offending Yahweh. 



2*J0 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ilous position. The Deuteronomist, or his successor, who formu- 
lated the faith of these men gave Judaism, Christianity, and Islam 
their common basis : " Yahweh thy God, is one; and thou 
shalt love Yahweh thy God, with all thy mind, and with all thy 
being, and with all thy strength." ^ 

This is not a speculative monotheism which is asserted. The 
author's motive is moral and practical. The nations may have 
their gods — for Israel there can be but one. Whole-souled devotion 
to Him is the basis of national life and the condition of national 
prosperity. Hence the sweeping and cruel measures advocated 
against the Canaanites as against all renegade Israelites. The re- 
quirement of a single sanctuary is the logical sequence. What 
had confused the people as to the unity of their God was the mul- 
tiplicity of holy places. The Baal of any particular holy place 
was the presiding genius of that locality. The change of name 
from Baal to Yahweh did not change the theory of the worship- 
pers. In the mind of the common man the Yahweh of Beer- 
sheba, the Yahweh of Hebron, and the Yahweh of Bethel were 
so many local divinities. The only remedy for this inveterate 
polytheism of the people was the restriction to a single sanctuary. 
^ So radical a measure could not be advocated unless there were 
special circumstances favouring it. We may count as one of 
these the prophetic tradition concerning ritual. We have felt the 
scorn which Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah poured upon the popular 
service of Yahweh. As they saw it going on — luxurious, lasciv- 
ious, uniting drunkenness with injustice and oppression — they 
could feel only abhorrence for it. Such a service was an abom- 
ination to Yahweh. The less of such a service the people had 
the better it would be for them — to obey is better than to sacri- 
fice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 

To abolish ritual altogether was seen to be impossible. But it 
was thought possible to regulate it. At a single sanctuary in the 
capital city, under the eye of the king, with adequate pohce 
supervision, the worship might be shorn of its abuses. The three 
great annual festivals would be often enough for the people to 
appear before Yahweh. Thus the traditional worship would be 
conserved. Nor would there be any hardship involved in such 
pilgrimages. The extent of Judah was small. A day's journey 

' Dent. 6 * ^ cf. lo ^^-i^. The verses may not be by the earliest Deuterono- 
mist, but they express the principle of the school in the most perfect form. 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 2J\ 

would be all that would be required of the most remote citizen. 
Such a journey would have advantages of its own in the way of 
trade and acquaintance, and the festival would gain, rather than 
lose, in importance by being the occasion of a formal pilgrimage. 

If there were to be a single sanctuary, it must be at Jerusalem. 
The Temple had been at first no more than the king's sanctuary, 
receiving a certain prestige from its connexion with the court. 
Solomon himself had recognised the importance of the High- 
places in making his pilgrimage to Gibeon. But, as time went 
on, the Temple grew in importance. The priests attached to it 
had the means of making its service attractive and imposing. 
Isaiah held the sanctuary to be the residence of Yahweh.^ In his 
time it had received a signal proof of the divine favour, for it 
had been protected when most of the sanctuaries were captured 
and sacked by the Assyrians. The failure of Sennacherib to take 
Jerusalem was read as proof of the inviolability of Yahweh's 
earthly seat. There could be no doubt where He should be 
worshipped — if at one place, it must be here. 

The course of reflection which gave the Deuteronomist his 
leading ideas is thus tolerably clear to us. For the form in which 
he presented them we should notice that a great name of the 
past was almost essential to the success of the programme. To 
put the ideas on parchment as a bald programme of reform would 
be to invite failure from the start. The people at large were im- 
pervious to logic or theology in abstract form. But the name of 
Moses would appeal to them. This name was already familiar as 
that of the founder of their religion. Tradition already ascribed 
to him the regulation of the social order and the establishment of 
a covenant between Yahweh and Israel. The social and religious 
ordinances already attributed to him might be repeated in a form 
adequate to the times, and expanded by the inclusion of the re- 
forms the author had so much at heart. 

The conception which the Deuteronomist had of his own work, 
therefore, was this : He would, in the name of Moses, remodel 
the constitution of Moses and adapt it to his own time. The 
character which he thus assumed allowed him to express his own 
personality, with its wealth of affection for Israel, and its depth 
of abhorrence for heathenism. It enabled him to speak with 
authority, and to appeal, on the ground of tradition, to the best 
^As we see from his inaugural vision (Is. 6). 



2/2 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

impulses of those who should read or hear his book. In carrying 
out his plan he allowed himself to embody in his code those moral 
principles which the whole prophetic school had so much at 
heart. He is never weary of urging justice to the oppressed, 
charity for the needy, kindness to the dependent. He does not 
content himself with general exhortations, but points out the spe- 
cific occasions on which acts of kindness may be best exercised. 
He urges this on the ground of Israel's own experience in the 
past, as well as on the ground of Yahweh's will in the matter. 
That he appeals to utilitarian motives is what we might expect. 
Obedience will be accompanied by temporal prosperity, disobedi- 
ence will be followed by calamity. That his love for his own 
people CO -exists with a demand for the most ruthless measures 
against foreigners ^ shows how easily narrowness may be found in 
the most benevolent heart. 

The space we have devoted to the Book of Instruction is jus- 
tified by its importance in Old Testament history. Politically, 
the action taken by Josiah was a new departure — practically 
nothing less than the adoption of a written constitution for the 
people. Whatever *' Mosaic" codes had existed before were 
compendiums for private use. Now the whole nation bound itself 
in the most solemn manner to abide by certain fixed regula- 
tions. That these were religious as well as civil is quite in accord 
with ancient thought. The distinction of church and state was 
quite unknown in Israel, as it is unknown in Islam to-day. The 
church, in fact, was the state. But the adoption of a book as the 
basis of a community (whether we call it church or state) was an 
act of far-reaching importance. 

The immediate effects were, of course, various in kind. Some 
minds must have been repelled rather than attracted by the en- 
deavour to put the transcendent will of Yahweh into a series of 
rules. The letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life, would be their 
impression. It is possible that we may find a representative of 
these more spiritually minded believers in Jeremiah. This 
prophet must have known the book. It was published not many 
years after he began to preach. His language constantly shows 
its influence or the influence of its ideas. And yet he makes no 

* The author's exhortations in favour of the stranger (as we have it in our 
version) include only the stranger who has entered into relations of clientage 
with Israel. 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 2/3 

direct and clear allusion to it. If he alludes to it at all, it is with 
an implication against it.^ The strong affirmation of Yahweh's 
covenant with the people, which is made by Jeremiah in common 
with Deuteronomy, is used by him to show that the defection of 
Judah is beyond amendment. By the law is the knowledge of 
sin. The attempt to put God's requirements into words shows 
how far short we are of the standard. 

No doubt more practical minds found satisfaction in the new 
code. Here at last was something clear-cut and definite. The 
exhortations of the prophets to justice and kindness and the 
knowledge of God had been irritating from their vagueness. 
Now the exhortations were translated into commands. Yahweh's 
will was now set forth in black and white. He meant to have 
them destroy the High-places, to do away with the ashera, to 
come to Jerusalem three times a year. No doubt the result was 
to encourage obedience to these specific commands. But the re- 
sult was also to encourage formalism and self-righteousness. And 
the danger of a reaction was not distant. The promise of earthly 
prosperity on condition of obedience was calculated to foster 
extravagant hopes. Should disappointment come, the conclusions 
that would be drawn are obvious. It is possible that Josiah him- 
self was the victim of false hopes. 

We cannot leave this subject without noticing that the actual 
effect of the adoption of the Book was to bring to an end the 
very institution that it was meant to establish. What stands out 
clearly is that the author desired to strengthen and enforce the 
authority of the prophets. He himself was a man of prophetic 
spirit and aims. His composition is a prophetic oration. He 
regarded Moses as only the first of a long line of inspired men, 
to follow whom would make Israel's happiness. He embodied 
in the Book an explicit promise that Yahweh would raise up a 
succession of such leaders. In each generation there would be a 
mediator between man and God, who should be instructed in the 
mind of God and convey it to the people, even as Moses stood be- 
tween the theophanic fire and the nation whom he was leading. 

* Jer. 8^ is sometimes supposed to be a reference to Deuteronomy, in 
which case Jeremiah condemned the book because it enabled the people to 
say they had the instruction of Vahweh, and consequently did not need that 
of the prophet. The reference, however, is hardly certain enough to build 
upon. 



274 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

It is easy to see the author's expectation that this hne of inspired 
instructors is to continue as long as Israel shall be a people.^ The 
author could not foresee that the adoption of a written revelation 
would do away with the necessity of the directly inspired leader. 
Yet such was the outcome. If Moses, the greatest of the prophets, 
left the revealed will of God in writing, why another prophet ? 
If*^the additional revelation only confirmed the one already given, 
it would be needless. It is to be supposed that a scribe, a student 
of language, will be abundantly able to interpret and expound 
the sufficient revelation. We see how easily this conclusion was 
drawn, and how the adoption of Deuteronomy was the first step 
toward the triumph of legalism, and the supremacy of the 
Scribes.^ 

The triumph of legalism, however, was a long way from Jo- 
siah and his contemporaries. The immediate event was the tri- 
umph of the prophetic party. The religious zeal of the nation 
was aroused and the cultus was reformed for the time being. 
Probably also there was some good done by the new-found ex- 
hortations to justice, kindness, and sobriety. If we may judge by 
the condition in which the book has come down to us, it was 
circulated in various editions, expanded by scribes who were in 
sympathy with its purpose. Some of these improvers inserted 
additional regulations, drawing upon established custom, or mak- 
ing the new commands more distinct. Some of them expanded 
the hortatory portions and enforced the lessons of the wilderness 
wandering. Our present copy seems to combine two or more of 
these enlarged editions and was further added to when it was 
fitted into its place in the Pentateuch. 

Habit is often stronger than any fit of enthusiasm — it has 
at least more staying power. Religious usage is naturally tena- 
cious of life. The forbidden sanctuaries must of necessity still 
hold a place in the regard of the people. The forbidden prac- 
tices could not at once be forgotten, nor could the king's com- 
mand make odious that which the people had cherished from 

* Compare Driver's remarks, in his Commentary, on Deut. i8 ^^^2. 

^ On Jeremiah's attitude toward Deuteronomy, compare Carpenter and 
Battersby, The Hexateuch, I, p. 90. On the Babylonian worship of the 
sun, the third edition of Schrader's KeilinschrifUn tind A lies Testament, 
p. 367, and on the Queen of Heaven, alluded to above, the same work, 
p. 441. 



JOSIAH AND HIS SOXS 2/5 

their youth. According to Jeremiah, the people's heart was still 
uncircumcised and their guilty desires still went out to other 
gods. His book gives no indication that the reform showed any 
real fruits.^ 

The little kingdom of Judah was thus setting its house in order 
according to its lights. The great outside world meanwhile was 
in commotion. Ashurbanipal, the last great king of Assyria, died 
not long before the time when the Book of Instruction was to 
create so profound an impression in Judah. Already the cloud 
was upon the horizon which should break upon Nineveh and 
overwhelm it. The wanderers of the far northern steppes had 
begun one of those great migrations which have changed the 
face of the world. The Scythians ^ — a nomad race — overran the 
empire. Beginning with Media, they swept along to the south 
till they reached the border of Egypt, where they are said to 
have refrained from invasion in consideration of a heavy money 
payment. They ravaged the country far and wide, and although 
unable to conduct a regular siege, they reduced many of the 
walled towns by starvation. We are imperfectly informed of 
their numbers and of their separate campaigns. Herodotus says 
that they scourged Assyria twenty-eight years. The terror which 
the report of them produced in Palestine may be read in Jere- 
miah's description : 

* * Cry with full voice and say : Assemble and come to the 
walled towns ! Lift up a signal in Zion, make haste, delay not ! 
For I am bringing evil from the north and a great calamity. A 
lion has gone up from his lair, and a destroyer of nations has 
started forth. He has come out of his place to make thy land a 
desolation ; thy cities shall be destroyed without inhabitant. 
. Behold, like clouds they come ; their chariots are like 
the whirlwind ; swifter than eagles are their horses. Woe to us, 
for we are destroyed ! . . . I look at the earth, and lo, ut- 

^ Caution is necessary here, as Jeremiah did not write down any of his 
prophecies (so we may understand the account in chapter 36) until the fourth 
year of Jehoiakim. The written copy may be more denunciatory than was 
the spoken word. Still it is strange that he should not refer to the evanes- 
cent revival if he approved of it at all. 

*For a description of them, cf. Rawlinson's ^«^/>«/ Monarchies, II, p. 
223 ff. On their invasion Duff, Old Testament Theology, II, p. 17 ff. 
Though Aryans by race (as it seems), they may be aptly compared to the 
Tartar hordes which overran the East in the Middle Age. 



2/6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ter confusion ! At the sky — and it gives no light. I look at 
the mountains and they are quaking ; and all the hills reel to and 
fro. I look and there is no man — even the birds have flown 
away. I look, and the garden land has become a wilderness, and 
all its cities are overthrown before Yahweh, before His hot 
anger." ^ 

We have also an interesting document from the same period in 
the little book of Zephaniah, a descendant of King Hezekiah.' 
Here we see the invasion pictured as the great Day of Yahweh, 
which the prophets so often have in mind. Specifically threat- 
ened are the Philistine cities, which we know to have suffered 
severely. The harm done to Assyria is also in the prophet's 
mind, though he does not picture its fall so vividly as does his 
successor Nahum. His declaration of the need of reform in 
Judah is, however, as striking as anything in Jeremiah.^ Our 
chronology is here uncertain, but it may be that these prophe- 
cies, with the near approach of the Scythians, stimulated the 
people in carrying out the reforms of Josiah. 

This time Judah was spared. The scourge of God fell heavily 
upon her neighbours, but the anticipation of immediate judg- 
ment for Judah was not fulfilled. The invasion was in fact to 
her benefit, for the Assyrian empire was so weakened that it 
could no longer oppress its remote dependency. Nor was it the 
Scythians alone that now pressed upon Nineveh. To the east a 
new power had arisen in Media, a kingdom which was strong 
enough to attempt the siege of Nineveh even before the Scythian 
invasion.* This siege was indeed unsuccessful, for the Median 
king (Cyaxares) was compelled to look to his defences, now 
threatened by the barbarian irruption. But this was only a tem- 
porary diversion. As soon as the pressing exigency was met, he 
returned to his plans. Assyria had lost both strength and pres- 
tige. Its most important dependency Babylon, always unruly, 

*Jer. 45-26, Undoubtedly when Jeremiah wrote down this prophecy 
he was thinking of the invasion by Nebuchadrezzar, then impending. But 
the occasion of the prophet's first speaking the passage was the Scythian ir- 
ruption, and the description draws its colours from this event. 

^ So it is natural to interpret the opening verse of the book (Zeph. i ^). 

^ Zeph. 3 ^'"^ is evidently directed against Jerusalem, but the rest of the 
chapter is of a different tenor and must be of later date. 

* It may not have come to an actual siege — see Wellhausen on Nahum, i *, 
Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, V, p. 156. 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 2^^ j 

had also seized its opportunity. Nabopolassar, the Assyrian 
viceroy, elevated himself to the throne and made an alliance 
with the Medes. The alliance was cemented by the marriage of 
a daughter of Cyaxares to the crown prince Nebuchadrezzar. A 

simultaneous attack was made upon Assyria, and after a pro- \ 

longed siege Nineveh fell. The city was so completely de- | 

stroyed that its location was for many centuries forgotten.^ --- | 

The feelings with which the people in Jerusalem saw this trag- ^^"^ 
edy enacted are well set forth by the prophet Nahum. We J\m^x^ 

seem to read the words of an eye-witness in this vivid descrip- ^ 

tion — the great city is thrown into confusion at the approach of j 

the enemy , the streets are filled with troops mustering for de- I 

fence ; the horses gallop, the chariots rattle over the pavements, \ 

their wheels strike fire ; the foot-soldiers with their red shields i 

man the walls. But all is in vain. The defences are stormed, \ 
the palace is plundered, the queen herself is carried away in 
the midst of her attendants — dishevelled, sobbing, beating their 

breasts in despair. The city is given over to sack, her enor- '• 

mous treasures fall into the hands of the invaders. The old lion ' 

who plundered all the world for his cubs, who strangled right : 
and left for his lionesses — now his lair is invaded, he and his 
cubs are slain. The mighty city is destroyed, the multitudes 

that boasted in her strength and riches have flown like the locusts ; 

which lodge in the hedges in swarms at night, but when the sun j 

gets warm take their flight and leave no trace behind.^ \ 

There is, however, more here than the natural joy of the Juda- \ 

ite over the impending destruction of the great oppressor. The \ 

prophets had taken pains to declare that Yahweh moves these : 

great nations for His own purposes. And these purposes must i 

be purposes of justice which His Day will declare. Isaiah was \ 

sure that when the Assyrian had accomplished the commission \ 

of the Holy One of Israel, he in turn would receive his reward. \ 

Isaiah was at last vindicated. Assyria had long served as the j 

^ The exact date of the fall of Nineveh is not yet ascertained. The years i 

607 and 606 B.C., both have their advocates. Cf. the paper by Johnston in ! 

the Journal of the American Oriental Society, xxii., 2, p. 20 flf. ' 

' Nahum 2 and 3. The text is uncertain in places, but the general sense ■ 

is plain ; cf. Nowack in the Handkotntnentar, and Wellhausen in the Skizzen ' 
und Vorarbeiten. A free rendering of the book is given by Duff, Old TeS' 

lament Theology, II, pp. 31-35. 1 



2/8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

rod in Yahweh's hand, but now the instrument was itself pun- 
ished. So we must understand Nahum's opening sentences : 

*' Yahweh is a jealous and avenging God. He meditates ven- 
geance on His enemies, and He plots against His adversaries. 
Yahweh is patient and of great strength, but He will not leave 
unpunished. In storm and whirlwind is His path, and the clouds 
are the dust of His feet. ' ' ^ 

The God of History is showing Himself to be a just God — 
this is the conviction of the prophetic school. And we can see 
how the dominant party in Jerusalem under Josiah would draw a 
conclusion favourable to their policy. It was shortly after the 
great reform (we may suppose) when these messages came, giving 
assurance of the downfall of Nineveh. The people of Yahweh 
had been spared by the Scythians; now they were to see the 
end of Assyria. What more evident than that their God was 
smiling on their observance of His commands as laid down in 
the Book of Instruction ! Jeremiah, indeed, was of another 
opinion. He set small store by the people's obedience, and ap- 
parently saw nothing hopeful in the fall of Nineveh. He still 
harped upon justice and righteousness, forbade oppression and 
fraud, hinted or asserted that Judah was worse than the sister 
kingdom whose sins had been so signally punished a hundred 
years before. He even went so far as to rebuke the people's 
trust in the Temple, and declared that Yahweh would be as 
ready to destroy this dwelling-place as he had been to destroy 
the older temple at Shiloh — whose ruins near the great north 
road might still be seen by the curious traveller.^ 

In all this, the pessimistic preacher seems to have stood alone. 
His nearest friends were out of patience with him, so that Yah- 
weh warned him of the machinations of his own family. To all 
appearance his clan had resolved to get rid of him by treachery 
and violence. Doubtless it seemed too bad that after all that 
had been done to meet the will of Yahweh this Cassandra-voice 
would not be quiet. There was consolation in the thought that 
this was the only one — a chorus of prophets applauded king and 
people, and pronounced that all was going well. The mass of 

^ Nahum, i '^' '. 

2 Jer. 7 *-^5. It is difficult to fix the exact date of these earlier chapters of 
Jeremiah, but this discourse must have been pronounced at a time when the 
people had special occasion to feel confidence in their sanctuary. 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 2/9 

the people were of the opinion that Yahweh was again smiHng 
upon them. It was natural that Josiah himself should share their 
view, and it is not difficult on this theory to account for the act 
by which he lost his life. 

When the fall of Nineveh was seen to be near at hand a new- 
old world-power appeared upon the scene. Egypt had been un- 
der the rule of Assyria and had had a period of division and 
weakness. But a new dynasty had asserted itself, its founder be- 
ing Psammetich I., a Libyan soldier who saw the capabilities of 
Greek mercenaries, with whose help he made himself master of 
the country.^ His own exploits were confined to his proper ter- 
ritory and he was even compelled to pay a heavy tribute to keep 
the Scythians from invading the country. But his son Necho, 
who came next to the throne, was more fortunate, or more am- 
bitious. In fact, it was inevitable that an Egyptian King when 
once secure of his position should inherit traditions of Asiatic 
conquest. The moment seemed favourable for extending the 
power of Egypt over Syria — Syria which had so often been under 
Egyptian suzerainty. Assyria was moribund ; its estate was about 
to be divided. Necho did not know — and if he had known 
might not have cared — that Babylon claimed the southern and 
western provinces, allowing Media to possess the north and east. 

Possession would be a strong point in Necho's favour. In the 
year 608 b. c, therefore, he marched into Palestine on the way to 
secure for himself all Syria as far as the Euphrates. Josiah opposed 
him and was killed. The Hebrew account says that the bat- 
tle took place at Megiddo in the Great Plain. This was out- 
side Josiah's proper territory, and if the account is accurate we 
must suppose that Josiah was called into service with other 
princes of the region by the Assyrian governor. Even then it 
would have been better to choose more defensible ground farther 
south.' The difficulty is met if we suppose the Hebrew writer 
to have confused Megiddo with some other name. Such a name 
is suggested by Herodotus, who speaks of Necho as defeating the 
Syrians at Magdolos. A Migdal, near the coast, which would 

^ His father had been governor ot one of the districts into which the coun- 
try was then divided. On this (the twenty-sixth) Egyptian dynasty, see 
Wiedemann, Geschichte des Alten Aegyptens {\%(^\), p. 171 ff. 

' If Necho (as some suppose), came by ship to Accho, he would hardly 
march by way of Megiddo to reach northern Syria. 



280 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

meet all the requirements, is located by the book of Joshua in the 
territory of Judah not far from the Philistine border/ 

Josiah's motive for the attack is not given. We may suppose 
that he was loyal to the Assyrian Empire and thought it his duty 
to defend it. In view of the consistent hatred of foreign nations 
held by the national party in Jerusalem this is hardly probable. 
The alternate theory has much to recommend it — that Josiah felt 
virtually independent of Assyria and had no mind to be brought 
under the control of Egypt. Strongly under the influence of the 
Book of Instruction, and persuaded that he had carried out its 
directions, he looked for the favour of Yahweh, and thought this 
favour must follow him in a.nj encounter with the enemies of 
Judah. He may have gone farther in his confidence and ambi- 
tion. Traditions of David's great empire would naturally arouse 
in him a desire to restore the ancestral glories of his house. 

Few instances in history are better calculated to enforce -the 
lesson that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, nor His ways 
man's ways. When the two armies met, Josiah was slain by the 
archers — in the preliminary skirmish, it would seem — and his 
officers brought the body to Jerusalem, where it was placed in the 
sepulchre which he himself had prepared.^ The grief of the peo- 
ple was intense, and to all appearances universal. Whatever the 
limitations of the king may have been, his righteousness and de- 
votion had won the respect of all. Three hundred years later his 
death was the subject of folk-songs.' The mourning was unabated 
some months after the sad event, as we learn from Jeremiah.* 
From the same source we learn that Josiah was a just ruler, for 
the prophet contrasts his conduct with that of Jehoiakim : '' Did 
not thy father eat and drink and act justly and rightly? Then 
it went well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and the 
needy — then it was well. Is not this to know me ? saith Yah- 

^ Josh. 15 3^, where the name is given as Migdal-gad. The statement of 
Herodotus is found in H, 159. Winckler's statement (^Geschichte Israels, I, 
163 f.) is convincing. Landau {Die Fhdnizier ^. 14) locates the battle at 
Strato's Tower, the site of the New Testament Cesarea, on the coast. 

2 2 Kings, 23 29 f. 

' The Chronicler must have some ground for his assertion that "the sing- 
ing men and singing women have spoken of Josiah in their elegies up to the 
present time " (2 Chr. 35 ^5). 

* " Weep not for the dead, neither bemoan him ; but weep sore for him 
that goeth away " — Jehoahaz is meant (Jer. 22 ^°' ^^). 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 281 

weh." Such language from the sternest moralist of the time is 
high praise. It is made more emphatic by the fact that Jeremiah 
never speaks with approval of the great religious reform on which 
Josiah laid so much stress. 

The rash act of Josiah, and his consequent death, brought 
his kingdom into the vicissitudes of external politics. Pharaoh 
Necho, it would seem, was willing, for the time being, to leave 
Judah in quiet while he was securing more remote districts. 
Now that Josiah had forced the issue, notice must be taken of 
the succession. During the next few years the struggle between 
Egypt and Babylon repeated the struggle of a century earlier be- 
tween Egypt and Assyria, and Judah was a mere counter in the 
game, in one case as in the other. The people's misery was in- 
creased, not only by the heavy tribute exacted by whichever 
master held the power, but by internal discord and by the vac- 
illating policy of their kings. These kings also left much to be 
desired in their personal character. Two of them reigned so 
short a time as to make no impression. Of the other two, one 
was a selfish and luxurious despot, the other a man of no 
strength of character — a mere figure-head in the court, alto- 
gether subservient to his corrupt and short-sighted officers. 

On the death of Josiah (b.c. 608) the popular choice fell upon 
his second son, Shallum, who assumed the name Jehoahaz on 
ascending the throne. What principles were involved, or what 
was the motive for passing over the older son, is not told. We 
may conjecture that the party of independence was able to put 
its candidate upon the throne. The Pharaoh, however, was in 
actual control of the situation, and had an observant eye on so 
important a fortress as Jerusalem. In his progress through Syria 
he seems to have met no eff'ective opposition, and had already 
reached Ribla on the Orontes. Hither he summoned the newly 
elected king. An attempt to evade the summons would have 
been vain, and Jehoahaz obeyed — only to be thrown into chains 
by the angry over-lord. He was carried away to Egypt, and his 
older brother, Eliakim, was put on the throne. Necho changed 
his name to Jehoiakim, apparently as an affirmation that it was 
Yahweh who was really giving Judah into the hands of Egypt. 
The victory over Josiah was interpreted as a manifestation of the 
will of Judah's God — just as Sennacherib, at an earlier time, 
claimed the help of Yahweh as his justification in invading Judah. 



282 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

In the further exercise of his sovereignty the Egyptian laid upon 
Judah a tribute of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. 
This amount Jehoiakim collected by a direct tax.^ 

All that we know of Jehoahaz is that his sad fate impressed 
both Jeremiah and Ezekiel.^ Jehoiakim (607-597) received 
more attention, but not more favourable attention, from Jere- 
miah. At a time when his kingdom was impoverished by the 
exactions of Egypt, he was possessed by the royal mania for build- 
ing. He was more concerned to vie with Ahab in the beauty of 
his palace, ''panelled with cedar and painted with vermilion," 
than he was to follow his father's example in administering justice. 
He not only compelled the artisans to work for him without 
wages, but he set the example of selling justice — in no other way 
can we understand the accusation that he exploited his position 
for gain, and that his eyes were fixed only on shedding innocent 
blood, and on violence, and robbery.' This mania looks like 
that which God sends upon the victims of destruction ; and so 
Jeremiah regarded it. 

The Egyptian predominance in Syria was short-lived. While 
the Babylonians and Medes were occupied in giving Nineveh the 
finishing stroke, Pharaoh Necho was able to accomplish his de- 
signs in the west. The various districts were taken in possession, 
one after the other, until the Euphrates was reached. But the 
Babylonians were not inclined to relinquish any rights. They 
were the heirs of Nineveh, except so far as they were bound by 
the agreement made with the Medes. Nabopolassar regarded 
himself, as by right of conquest, over-lord, not only of Syria, but 
of Egypt itself. The actual commander of the forces was Nebu- 
chadrezzar, a prince of ability in more than one direction. The 
year after the fall of Nineveh he met the Egyptian army at Car- 
chemish, on the Euphrates, and inflicted upon them a crushing 

1 The sum seems disproportionately divided between the two metals, and 
we should, perhaps, read ten talents of gold, with one recension of the 
Greek version. The passage is 2 Kings, 23 '^. See Kittel in his commentary. 
The name Jehoiakim (Yahweh-establishes) may be a direct answer to the 
claim made in the name Jehoahaz (Yahweh-holds-fast). 

^Jer. 22 ^S Ezek. 19 ^"^ 

' Jer. 22 ^3-1^. Some slight changes in the text are necessary, for which 
the reader may consult Cornill's edition in Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old 
Testament (1895). Giesebrecht finds Solomon alluded to rather than Ahab 
{Handkom men tar) . 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 283 

defeat. The date (b.c. 605) marks one of the turning points in 
the world's history.^ By it Babylon established its claim to the 
Assyrian empire. Nebuchadrezzar followed up his success, receiv- 
ing the submission of the Syrian states as far as the boundary of 
Egypt. He marched with his army throughout the whole terri- 
tory, but when about to enter Egypt he received news of his 
father's death, and hastened by express the nearest way through 
the desert to Babylon. 

The whole progress from Carchemish to Philistia occupied but 
a few months, and it was to be expected that so rapid a conquest 
would not be permanent. The Hebrew historian relates sum- 
marily as usual, saying only that in Jehoiakim's days "Nebu- 
chadrezzar came up to Babylon and Jehoiakim became his serv- 
ant for three years, then he turned and rebelled against him."^ 
From a verse in Ezekiel it has been supposed that Jehoiakim 
voluntarily sent an embassy to vow allegiance to Nebuchad- 
rezzar. He was, however, indebted to the Pharaoh for his 
crown in the first place and it is not strange that his secret 
preference was for his old master. The rebellion seems not to 
have been confined to Judah, but to have included a consider- 
able number of Syrian states. They depended upon Egypt, 
which again proved to be a broken reed. The Hebrew narrative 
is again so brief as to be obscure: "The King of Egypt came 
no more forth from his land, for the King of Babylon had taken, 
from the Wadi of Egypt to the river Euphrates, all that belonged 
to the King of Egypt." ^ 

It was when the first news of the approach of the Babylonians 
reached Jerusalem that Jeremiah renewed his warnings, predict- 
ing that Yahweh was about to destroy His city and Temple as 
He had laid Shiloh waste. To the hearers this seemed to be 
treason. The bold prophet was arrested by the priests and 
prophets and brought before the princes for judgment. The 
princes found precedent for releasing him, in the case of Micah, 
who had uttered a similar prophecy but had been spared by 

^ The battle must have taken place very early in the year ; cf. Winckler 
Alttestamentliche Unterstichungeu , p. 83. 

* 2 Kings, 24 '. The chronological difficulties are set forth by Kittel in his 
commentary. McCurdy {History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, III, p. 167) 
supposes we should read six years for the three of the text. 

^ 2 Kings, 24^. 



284 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Hezekiah. Jeremiah was therefore released — he had influential 
friends as we know — but a man named Uriah who was of the 
same way of thinking was so threatened that he fled to Egypt. 
Jehoiakim's influence in Egypt was such that he was able to send 
for the offender and bring him back to Jerusalem, where he was 
executed. The incident throws light not only on the danger in 
which Jeremiah was from this time on, but on the strength of 
party feeling in Jerusalem. 

The disorders in the Syrian states were so marked that Ne- 
buchadrezzar established his headquarters at Riblah on the Orontes 
for several years. Not able to finish the guerilla war by a single 
blow he sent detachments of his army where the need was most 
evident. This method of procedure is indicated by the Hebrew 
author, who says that Nebuchadrezzar sent against Judah *' bands 
of Chaldeans, bands of Aram, bands of Moab, bands of Am- 
mon."^ The bands of Chaldeans were regular Babylonian 
soldiers. The others were irregulars enlisted for this sort of 
service. The Bedawin doubtless gave the king much trouble, 
and he was obliged to employ the means which God and nature 
had put into his hands. Although not himself a cruel or vindic- 
tive man, it seemed to him legitimate thus to harry rebels into 
submission. At last, however, he was able to appear before 
Jerusalem with a regular army — or rather the army had already 
invested the city when the king appeared. Jehoiakim mean- 
while had died and so escaped the vengeance he had merited. 
His son Jehoiachin was recognised as king by the Jerusalemites. 
But as Egypt made no move, the scarcely crowned monarch saw 
the necessity of surrender, and with his family gave himself un- 
conditionally into the hands of the Babylonians. 

The city was spared, but Jehoiachin was carried to Babylon, 
where he was kept in prison — or perhaps only under guard — till 
the accession of Evil-Merodach in the year 561 B.C. Jeremiah 
uttered a brief lament over the fate of the young king. Ezekiel 
also, who was one of the train which accompanied him to 
Babylonia, describes the young lion that was taken in a pit and 
brought in a cage to Babylon.* 

^ 2 Kings, 24 ^. On the length of time Nebuchadrezzar had his head- 
quarters at Riblah, see Winckler in Keilinschr. und Altes Test. ^p. 108. 

2Jer. 22 2*-^^ cf. 13 ^^"^\ Ezek. ig^"^. It has been suggested that Jehoia- 
chin and his court were mildly treated in order to intimate that he might be 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 28$ 

Although the city did not suffer the extremity of siege at this 
time, Nebuchadrezzar was not minded to let it go unpunished. 
That he carried away the palace treasures and a part of the 
vessels of the Temple is what we might expect/ More important 
for history was the forced emigration of the principal inhabitants. 
Besides the members of the court, the Babylonian carried away 
the leading men of the city, officials, men-at-arms, and master- 
artisans. His idea was to break the power of the nation, so that 
it would not again rebel. We may suppose that Egyptian sym- 
pathisers were especially marked for this punishment, which the 
king thought would be exemplary. Or, he may have had in 
mind Assyrian precedent, as we saw it in the case of Samaria, 
only he hesitated to go the Assyrian length. It was natural to 
suppose that the leading men of the nation being once out of the 
way, there would be no more suggestion of revolt. The sequel 
shows how the wisest statesmen may miscalculate. 

The impression made upon faithful Judaites by these disorders, 
incursions, and triumph of the Chaldeans, is reflected in the little 
book which bears the name of Habakkuk. The author is known 
to us only by this sigh and meditation over the problems of his 
time. He seems to be one of those who felt that Judah had 
shown herself righteous before Yahweh by carrying out the com- 
mands in the Book of Instruction. But this righteousness had 
not obtained the approval of God, or the prosperity which had 
been promised. Instead of peace there had come renewed and 
more cruel warfare. The Chaldeans — a hasty and violent nation — 
are going through the earth to seize what is not theirs. If Yah- 
weh is indeed of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, how does 
this comport with His government of the world? As things are, 
we see confusion and trouble, instead of the peace for which we 
had hoped. Nor can we find comfort in the thought that this is 
for the glory of Yahweh. The victor rejoices in his own strength, 
and, if he worships at all, he worships his own weapons as divine. 
With such thoughts, the prophet finds refuge in prayer, and then 
receives the message on which — although it does not solve the 

restored in case Zedekiah's conduct was not satisfactory ; so Erbt, Jeremia 
und seine zeit (1902) p. 23. 

^ All the golden vessels which Solomon had made are specified by the 
Hebrew author — 2 Kings, 24^^. It should be remembered, however, that 
the Temple had been repeatedly plundered since the time of Solomon. 



286 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

world -problem — he is able to stay his soul: ''The righteous 
shall live in his fidelity." ^ The relation of God to the individ- 
ual believer is becoming a matter of experience. 

The first deportation took place in the year 597 b. c. It is an 
event of the greatest importance for the future of the chosen peo- 
ple. Eight thousand heads of families is the computation of a 
Hebrew writer.'^ This would imply a train of forty thousand 
people. These were settled in Babylonia in a community of 
their own. Their hope for an early return held them together 
till the fall of Jerusalem. By this time they had begun to fit 
themselves to the situation, and to maintain something of their 
separate life as against the heathenism about them. They were 
reinforced by a few of their compatriots later, and were thus 
enabled to begin that life of sojourn which has been the life of 
Judaism down to the present day. 

The untimely death of Josiah, the success of Egypt and then 
the Chaldean invasion, as well as the personal character of Jehoia- 
kim, must have undone a large part of the work of reform. This 
conclusion may be drawn from the nature of the case, and it is 
confirmed by the discourses of Jeremiah. We have already had 
occasion to quote from this remarkable man, but we may now 
note more in detail the experience which he went through. The 
title of weeping prophet, given him as the supposed author of the 
book of Lamentations, makes a false impression. He did indeed 
weep, as every oriental weeps, in time of calamity, but it would 
be wrong to picture him whining or sobbing, or bathed in tears. 
His general attitude is that of the stern judge, compelled by 
truth and by fidelity to conscience to denounce the sinfulness 
of the people whom he yet loved. His courage in thus standing 
alone against the men of his time, justifies his own comparison of 
himself to a brazen wall and an iron tower. He seems to have 
been of a gentle and affectionate nature. His love of his country 
is undoubted — the best evidence is that he loathed her shame. 
He knew that if he delivered his message he would be contra- 
dicted, scoffed at, abused as a traitor. The prompting of his 
heart was to keep silent. But the word was too strong for him — 
he could not forbear. So he went on speaking the message as it 
was given him, knowing all the time that he was alienating his 

* Hab. 2 *. The last chapter of the book seems to belong in a later time. 
^2 Kings, 24^^. The ten thousand of v. ^* seems to be a round number. 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 28/ 

friends, angering the mob, offending the rulers. Privately he 
expostulated with his God, pleaded with Him, wept before Him, 
relieved his feelings by pouring out maledictions upon his perse- 
cutors. And his only consolation was a renewed call to duty 
with the assurance that the worst was yet to come. 

What we find surprising in Jeremiah's long career is the uni- 
formity of his message. For Josiah he had respect and even af- 
fection. But the state of Judah was not satisfactory to him even 
in the exaltation of the great reform. It must have been about 
the time of the reform that he delivered a discourse which might 
be taken as summing up his message. Speaking to Judah in the 
name of Yahweh, he says : 

" I remember the love of thy youth, the affection of thy honey- 
moon, thy following me into the desert. . . . What fault 
did your fathers find in me that they deserted me and followed 
after nothingness, and themselves became vain ? . . . I 
brought you into the garden-land to eat its fruit and its produce, 
but you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination. 
The priests do not say : Where is Yahweh ? Those whose busi- 
ness is instruction, do not know me. The shepherds of the peo^ 
pie have rebelled against me. The prophets prophesy by Baal 
and walk after what does not help. . . . Go to the shores of 
Cyprus and look, and send to Kedar and inquire carefully whether 
the like of this has taken place — has any nation exchanged its 
god for another ? But my people has exchanged its Glory for 
that which does not help." ^ 

It is easy to see that Jeremiah has adopted the parable of Hosea. 
Judah is Yahweh's wife. She was faithful in the first flush of 
youthful affection, but now she has deserted Him, running after 
the Baals. The conclusion of the discourse points out that a 
woman who is married to another may not return to her first hus- 
band. Hence the prophet argues that Judah is for ever taboo to 
her covenant Lord, and repentance is vain. The repentance he 
has in mind is probably the ebullition of feehng in the reform 
movement. In a discourse which borrows the language of Deu- 
teronomy he emphasised the covenant made with the fathers when 
they came out of Egypt, but only to point out that the covenant 
had been broken and that the outlook was hopeless: ''Can 
prayers or sacrificial flesh take away thine evil, or canst thou thus 
■ Jer. 2 ^-^\ cf. 3^-^ which seems to be the conclusion of the same discourse. 



288 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

be delivered ? " ^ The rhetorical question is an emphatic nega- 
tive. The prophet would have it otherwise. He tries to inter- 
cede for his people as though to ask that their repentance may be 
accepted. But he is forbidden to pray for them, and told that 
though the most effectual intercessors of past times (Moses and 
Samuel) were to appear on behalf of the people, all would be in 
vain. The ear of Yahweh is closed. 

The prophet's mind seems to have dwelt much on the burden 
of guilt inherited from the past. The sins of Manasseh and his 
time — how could present well-doing atone for these? On ac- 
count of these alone Yahweh must punish, and to them was added 
the habitual craving of the people for the old gods. Even in their 
reform measures they were making the old mistake of supposing 
that Yahweh was concerned chiefly about ritual. Scornfully He 
inquires concerning the new enrichments of the service : '' Why 
does incense from Sheba come before me and sweet cane from 
a far country ? Your burnt offerings are not accepted, nor are 
your sacrifices well pleasing to me." So far as Yahweh cares, 
they may put their burnt offerings and their sacrifices together 
and eat them themselves; and He roundly declares: ^' I spoke 
not with your fathers, nor did I command them in respect to 
burnt offerings and sacrifices the day I brought them out of the 
land of Egypt ; but this thing I commanded them : Hearken to 
my voice and I will be your God and you shall be my people." * 
To hearken to the voice of Yahweh is to do right. Jeremiah is 
quite clear as to what is meant. Objurgating the false confidence 
in the Temple, as was noted above, he adds : ''If you practise 
justice between man and man, if you do not oppress the client, 
the fatherless, the widow, if you do not shed innocent blood in 
this place, or go after other gods to do evil — then I will make 
you dwell in this place. "^ Properly speaking, ritual has no 
place at all in this list of requirements. 

The recrudescence of the old abuses under Jehoiakim, to- 

^ Jer. II ^5 — emended text. 

^ Ibid., 7 22 '. The passage shows, with a clearness which none can mis- 
take, that Jeremiah knew nothing of any divinely given Levitical legislation. 
On sacrifices cf. 6 ^'^, 7 ^i. The allusion to incense quoted above indicates 
that it is something new in the Temple service. Probably Babylonian 
influence may be traced here. 

^ Ibid. , 7 ^''. The verses immediately follow the one which describes the 
false confidence. 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 289 

gether with the personal character of that monarch, only made 
the prospect darker. It was in the fourth year of this king that 
Jeremiah was pressed in spirit to give a solemn testimony. He 
was prevented from going to the Temple for some ritual reason. 
But it was a fast day, when the people would come to worship in 
large numbers. He therefore had his friend Baruch write down 
at his dictation an epitome of his discourses and read it before 
the multitude. His object was, no doubt, to show the consist- 
ency of his message. For twenty years this was what he had 
declared to the people. So far forth he was defending his own 
call — for consistency is one mark of fidelity. But the incident 
only accentuated the opposition of the prophet to the leaders. 
While the book was a-reading, one of the king's officers brought 
intelligence of it to the royal council then in session. Perhaps 
they were even then deliberating on the alliance against Nebu- 
chadrezzar. They sent a messenger and brought Baruch before 
them and had him read the book. Assuring themselves that it 
was the genuine dictation of Jeremiah, they advised Baruch to 
seek a place of concealment. At the same time they took pos- 
session of the book and brought it to the king. One of them 
began to read it aloud, but no more than three or four pages 
were read before the king became angry, cut the roll to pieces 
and threw it into the brazier burning before him.^ He also or- 
dered the arrest of Jeremiah and Baruch, but they could not be 
found. At the command of Yahweh, however, the contents of 
the roll were recorded on another roll with additions from the 
recollection of the prophet. 

The roll thus rewritten probably became the nucleus of our 
present book of Jeremiah. The earlier chapters of the book bear 
the marks of such composition. In them we seem to hear the 
author's apologia pro vita sua. He tells us how he heard the 
voice of Yahweh commanding him to preach ; how at this time 
he foresaw calamity coming upon his people ; how he would 
have refused on account of his youth ; how he has been faithful 
in delivering the message. At times he records for us the strug- 
gle which went on between his natural inclination and the over- 
powering Word of Yahweh.^ All this was calculated to impress 

' Jer. 36, The material must have been papyrus, otherwise an intolerable 
smoke would have resulted. 
«Jer. 16, 611, iii9ff.^ igisff. 



290 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

the reader, or hearer, with the genuineness of the call, and with 
the fidehty of the one who received it. 

In spite of the nature of the message there was still a possibility 
that the final doom might not be put into execution. " Perchance 
the house of Judah will listen to all the evil I am planning to do 
them, so as to turn from their evil way — then I will forgive their 
iniquity and their sin." Yahweh is not so bound by His pur- 
poses that He cannot change. The potter who finds the vessel he 
is making not shaped to his mind, can crush the clay together 
and mould it into a different form. So Yahweh has power and 
freedom. While there is life there is hope — but the hope which 
hangs on to the last breath of the dying man is a very slender hope 
indeed.^ Certainly if the sinfulness continues, the punishment is 
sure. 

The king who burned the book without even hearing it was not 
likely to be deterred from any step on which he had set his heart. 
And we may suppose that the incident was a turning-point in 
Jeremiah's own feeling. He became convinced that the evil 
would certainly come. From this time on he had the calmness of 
a man who knows the worst. The testimony was kept up, that the 
people might be without excuse. And we must remember that a 
different school of prophets was singing in another key. There 
were plenty of these to assure the people that they should not see 
sword or famine. Their activity was a challenge to Jeremiah. 
His silence might be construed as giving assent to their false 
hopes. The sharpness of the issue was not moderated even to the 
end, when Jeremiah had the poor satisfaction of seeing his pre- 
diction verified in the destruction of his country. 

We have already seen that the Deuteronomistic school con- 
tinued their literary work after the finding of the now famous book 
in the Temple. We have no reason to suppose that they were 
inactive during the reign of Jehoiakim. The more discouraging 
external circumstances seemed to be, the more tenaciously they 
would hold on to their own point of view. They therefore sup- 
plemented the book which was now their favorite study, by in- 
serting further commandments and by expanding the hortatory 
sections. As Yahweh seemed about to desert His people, the 
record of earlier blessings became more precious. To an author 

^ Chapter i8 (the potter) is designed to indicate Yahweh's right to change 
His plan according to circumstances. 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 29I 

of this school we may attribute the poem now inchided in the 
book of Deuteronomy and called the Song of Moses.* The com- 
position puts into rhythmical form the prophetic rebuke of Israel. 
Yahweh, the Most High, chose Israel as His possession ; He led 
the ])eople in the wilderness, and brought them into the land of 
milk and honey. But Israel grew prosperous and rebellious — re- 
jected its God for others, and so aroused His jealousy. Hence 
His threat of visitation. But the punishment will show them that 
the false gods cannot save. So, when they cry to Him, He will 
hear and save, and destroy their enemies. With such hopes of a 
speedy sentence upon the oppressive Chaldeans, faithful men nour- 
ished their hearts in this time of trouble. 

Jeremiah carried on his campaign of protest in the last year of 
Jehoiakim by an object lesson. When the Chaldean army in- 
vaded the land, the country people took refuge behind the walls of 
Jerusalem. Among them came the clan of Rechabites, which we 
have already had occasion to mention in connection with Jehu.^ 
Jeremiah took note of their presence, and one day brought them 
to the Temple, and set wine before them. They refused to drink, 
and gave as a reason the vow of their ancestor, Jonadab ben 
Rechab. This vow bound them to Israel's ancient mode of life 
in the desert — they were not to drink wine, or to build houses, or 
to plant fields or vineyards. This they had faithfully observed, 
and no pressure was strong enough to make them disobey. This 
fidelity of theirs was in strong contrast to the conduct of Judah. 
They were faithful to a mere human injunction ; Judah had re- 
fused to keep a solemn covenant with Yahweh. 

It was not without abundant monition, therefore, that the 
people of Jerusalem saw their fate approaching. In one respect, 
indeed, the prophet's expectation was not fulfilled by the event. 
Jehoiakim died in his bed and was buried in the sepulchre of the 
kings — whereas Jeremiah had declared that his unburied carcass 
should be fought over by the dogs. But this is a mere matter of 
detail. For the young Jehoiachin and the queen -mother, Jere- 
miah had a dirge lamenting the loss of the flock, scarcely com- 
mitted to them before they were carried into captivity. ^ 

^ Deut. 32. The text is corrected in places by the commentaries. 
2 Above, p. 191. The account of the incident is contained in Jer. 35. 
' Jer. 13 18-20. The parable of the spoiled girdle in the early part of the 
same chapter may belong in the same period. 



292 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Nebuchadrezzar appointed Jehoiachin's uncle — Mattaniah — 
the third son of Josiah, to come to the throne — changing his name 
to Zedekiah, the Justice of Yahweh. Whether this expresses Neb- 
uchadrezzar's claim to be the executor of that justice upon the 
unfortunate Jehoiachin cannot now be made out. The people 
might have so interpreted it with profit to themselves. Nebu- 
chadrezzar expected his ''blood-letting" to have a sobering 
and regenerating effect on the body politic. The result was the 
exact opposite of the expectation. 

Nor is this hard to account for. The people had for a long 
time been threatened with a judgment from Yahweh. Those 
who remained behind in Jerusalem felt that the judgment had 
now fallen, and it had not been as bad as they had expected. 
Whether Isaiah's doctrine of the Remnant had been widely 
adopted or not, it was now virtually applied. The prophetic 
preaching always assumed that those who should repent would be, 
spared — is not the justice of God pledged not to destroy the right- 
eous with the wicked ? Nothing was easier than to argue that 
if those who repent are to be spared, then those who are actually 
spared are the ones who have repented. The dregs of the peo- 
ple, left behind in Jerusalem, laid this flattering unction to their 
souls : ' * We have been spared by Yahweh, therefore we are 
righteous in His sight. ' ' Then there was the excitement of the 
new situation. The leading men had been carried away, but 
the framework of the government remained. A new king was on 
the throne, and his court must not lack in titles and dignities. 
We can imagine the scramble for offices with high-sounding 
titles. The self-sufficiency of parvenus and their self-confidence 
is proverbial. The new king was a good-natured but nerveless 
man. His courtiers were ignorant, arrogant, intolerant, over- 
bearing in their conduct toward their monarch. 

The people at large were intoxicated with joy at their es- 
cape, and at their new importance. The exiles had been obliged 
to dispose of their property on such terms as they could make. 
The purchasers or usurpers felt that they had great bargains. 
They were now the gentry and landed proprietors of the nation. 
That they showed the pride that goes before destruction is evi- 
dent. Jeremiah does not hesitate to give his opinion. After 
the deportation he saw two baskets of figs — the one very good, 
the other very bad. The voice of Yahweh told him that the 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 293 

good represented the exiles ; the bad were those who were left 
behind. Ezekiel also alludes to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 
who say of the exiles : " They are far from the land of Yahweh ; 
^0 us is the land given for a possession." ^ Upon men in this 
frame of mind exhortation has no effect. 

The new rulers were not long in trying their hands at the game 
of politics. Egypt was still ready to promise great things. The 
neighbours of Judah were tired of their divisions, and they began 
to realise that they were oppressed by the Babylonians. Plans 
were soon agitated for a common effort at independence. Am- 
bassadors from Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon came to 
Jerusalem to concert measures. Jeremiah appeared in a way 
which we should call sensational. He made a number of wooden 
yokes. One of them he wore himself; the others he carried for 
the foreign ambassadors. His advice was given in words as well 
as by symbols, to the effect that they should " put their necks 
into the yoke of the king of Babylon." ^ But the large majority 
of the prophets was on the other side. They confidently declared 
that within two years the vessels of the Temple which Nebuchad- 
rezzar had carried away should be brought back, and one Han- 
aniah in an ecstasy snatched the yoke from Jeremiah's neck 
and broke it, with the exclamation : '' Thus saith Yahweh : So 
will I break the yoke of the king of Babylon from the neck of all 
the nations." 

Jeremiah contented himself at this time with expressing a hope 
that the word might be true — though he pointed out plainly that 
the analogies of prophetic revelation were all against it. It was 
only after some time that the word of Yahweh was borne in upon 
him so that he could make a positive declaration. This he did 
in the words : " Thus saith Yahweh : Thou hast broken the yoke 
of wood, but I will make a yoke of iron. I will put a yoke of 
iron on the necks of all these peoples that they may serve the 
king of Babylon." The too sanguine Hananiah received also 
a personal message to the effect that he should die the same year, 
which was fulfilled. 

If we are to find room in the life of Zedekiah for the visit to 

* Ezek. II ^^ : on the text, Toy's edition in Haupt's series, or Giesebrecht 
in the Handkotn?nentar. Cf. Jer. 24. 

* Jer. 27 and 28. The account is not from Jeremiah himself, but seems to 
rest on good information. 



294 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Babylon of which mention is made toward the close of the book 
of Jeremiah^ it must be about this time. It is altogether likely 
that Nebuchadrezzar would get news of the projected alliance and 
would call Zedekiah to account. The statement in our book, 
however, is in a very late passage and we cannot be certain that 
it is based on trustworthy tradition. That Nebuchadrezzar's 
headquarters were at Riblah for a considerable period we have 
already noted. 

The exiles in Babylonia entertained similar illusions to those 
held at Jerusalem, and the idea of an early return was impressed 
upon them by their prophets. There seems nothing improbable 
therefore in the account of Jeremiah's letter to them, called out 
by messages from Babylon hostile to the prophet. The letter 
warns the exiles against false hopes of return ; seventy years must 
elapse before the visitation for which they sighed. The period 
of seventy years — which would allow at least two generations to 
grow up — is not intended to keep alive the hopes of the people,^ 
but to emphasise the fact that the return is a long way off. It is 
necessary therefore that the people adapt themselves to their cir- 
cumstances, make homes for themselves, raise up children, and seek 
the welfare of the great kingdom into which they have now been 
incorporated.^ We know also from Ezekiel that the exiles were 
unwilling to believe in the coming calamity for Jerusalem and we 
naturally suppose that they were looking for an early return. 

In cherishing vain hopes, in framing vain plots, the years passed 
till 589 B. c, when Nebuchadrezzar was obliged to send an army 
to Palestine. At its first appearance before Jerusalem a spasm of 
repentance passed over the people. Understanding from the proph- 
et that justice and kindness would obtain the favour of Yahweh, 
they looked about for some of the duties left undone which they 
might still perform. In the Book of Instruction they found the 
ordinance, contained also in the older Book of the Covenant,' 
that the slave of Hebrew birth should be set free after six years' 
service. The law seems always to have been a counsel of perfec- 

^ Jer. 51 ^. On Zedekiah's obligation to Nebuchadrezzar we have Ezekiel's 
explicit statement (P^zek. 17^') ; compare also the same prophet's parable of 
the eagle and the cedar branch (17 ^-^"). 

^ Jer. 29. The chapter in its present form is apparently of comparatively 
late date. 

'Deut. 15 12-18. Ex. 21 1-^ The differences do not here concern us. 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 295 

tion. All the more would it be a proof of their new zeal for 
obedience to Yahweh. King and people therefore entered into 
a solemn engagement. According to an ancient ceremonial, a 
calf was sacrificed and cut in halves. By walking between the 
pieces the engagers imprecated the divine vengeance upon them- 
selves in case they should violate their oath.^ 

For the moment it seemed as if the strenuous effort would be 
rewarded. Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) marched with his army 
into Palestine with the apparent intention of defending his allies. 
The Chaldean army therefore temporarily withdrew from Jeru- 
salem to meet the threatened attack. The Jerusalemites con- 
cluded that the expected deliverance had taken place, and with 
indecent haste violated their oath and forced the just liberated 
slaves back into servitude. It is needless to comment on the 
levity and lack of feeling of responsibility shown by this transac- 
tion. No wonder that Jeremiah despaired of such a people. 

The Pharaoh was again a vain help. Whether he was defeated 
in a pitched battle, as is asserted by Josephus,'' or whether he re- 
treated without fighting, as is implied in the account in Jeremiah, 
cannot certainly be made out. The effect upon the fortune of 
Jerusalem was the same, for in a short time the Chaldean army 
returned and a formal siege of the city was begun. This lasted 
for a year and a half, during which the city was closely invested, 
and the battering-rams were kept at work. The besieged de- 
fended themselves with courage and skill. Otherwise we cannot 
account for the length of time they held out — weakened as they 
were by the recent deportation of the flower of their army. They 
suffered from famine and pestilence, and probably from internal 
dissension as well. The traditions preserved for us in the book 
of Jeremiah probably give a correct picture of the time, and we 
may, therefore, follow the fortunes of the prophet as there re- 
counted. 

When the siege was temporarily raised by the Chaldeans Jere- 
miah attempted to go to his own village of Anathoth. He may 
have thought he could protect his little property by being on the 
spot ; as a non-combatant he would be spared by the invaders; 

' Jer. 34*"^^. Note especially v." and compare Gen. 15^"^^ where Yahweh 
and Abraham enter into covenant by a similar rite. For Babylonian analo- 
gies cf. Keilinschriften und Altes Testament^, p. 597. 

2Josephus, Ant., X, VII, 3; Jer. 37 ^ 



296 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

possibly he reasoned that if he were out of the city there would be 
one mouth less to feed. But any move he might make would be 
looked upon with suspicion. He had aroused the violent hatred 
of the national party by opposing their plans for revolt. For a 
long time he had been regarded as a traitor. It was natural that 
the guard should apprehend him at the city gate and accuse him 
of desertion to the enemy. 

Those who had charge of him were prepared to make treason 
odious, and they thrust him into the most noisome place at their 
command. This was an old cistern, the floor of which was deep 
with slime. The account of his experiences here may be read at 
length in the Biblical text. After being released from the imme- 
diate danger of suffocation — this was on the intercession of a slave 
of the king — he was kept in the king's prison till the end of the 
siege. The king would have set him at liberty, but could do noth- 
ing against the will of the nobles. He even sent for the prophet 
secretly and asked his advice. Jeremiah consistently urged him 
to surrender before the final storm and sack of the city. But this 
Zedekiah could not get himself to do. 

From the king's fear that the Judaites in the camp of Nebu- 
chadrezzar might abuse him, we gather that a considerable num- 
ber had already made their peace with the Babylonians. Zede- 
kiah was but a shadow king over a desperate band of men. His 
interviews with Jeremiah always had the same termination. 
He even asked Jeremiah to prevaricate concerning the subject of 
their conversations. At last the end came. The bread in the 
city was exhausted about the same time that a breach was made 
in the city wall. Zedekiah, at the head of the few soldiers still 
alive, tried to cut his way through the enemy, hoping to escape 
down the Jericho road. In the wilderness a band of desperate 
men might be able to maintain themselves even against the Baby- 
lonians. 

The Chaldeans were too expert to allow anything of this kind 
to succeed. The sortie was fortunate in that the king eluded the 
immediate besiegers. But the party was pursued and in the 
Jordan valley they were overtaken and captured. Nebuchadrezzar 
seems to have remained in his headquarters at Riblah. Hither 
the Judaite king with his forlorn train were brought. It is 
scarcely a matter for surprise that Nebuchadrezzar dealt severely 
with them. Zedekiah' s sons were put to death before his eyes, 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 297 

and he himself was blinded and taken to Babylon, where he 
ended his days in prison. A large number of his officers were 
executed. 

The poor king had paid the penalty of his weakness. The 
city over which he was nominal ruler was more to blame. It 
had shown itself constantly inconstant. Seditious, obstinate, 
and lacking in good faith, it had provoked the utmost severity of 
the conqueror. It was given over to sack. The Temple was plun- 
dered of all that was valuable and was then set on fire. The 
houses of the people also were looted and burned. It seems to 
have been the king's purpose to make the place uninhabitable. 
A miserable remnant of people had survived the siege. Such as 
did not perish in the sack or by the hand of the executioner 
were carried away to Babylonia. Three detachmenti are men- 
tioned in the book of Jeremiah, amounting to four thousand six 
hundred heads of families.^ Of these only a little over eight hun- 
dred were taken at the fall of the city. Of the poorer classes 
there were left enough to prevent thecountry's reversion to jungle. 
The district was made part of the Babylonian province and a 
governor was appointed with his seat at Mizpah — an ancient 
sanctuary not far from Jerusalem. 

The governor appointed was one Gedahah, a Judaite of the 
Babylonian party. Jeremiah was given his choice of going to 
Babylon or of remaining in his ruined country. He chose to 
remain. In the circumstances we can see that barbarism was 
the first danger. Gedaliah caused it to be known that there was 
to be a settled government, and attempted to organise his ad- 
ministration. Fugitives began to return, and some of the guerilla 
bands which had been living on the country came in and sub- 
mitted. The captain of one such band — Ishmael by name — 
could not brook even the semblance of power in the hands of a 
renegade — for such he must have held Gedaliah to be. Ishmael 
himself was of royal blood, and perhaps thought to repeat the 
career of his ancestor David. He was supported (secretly we 
may suppose), by Baalis, King of Ammon, and perhaps, also had 
Egyptian encouragement. Gedaliah, though warned against him, 

^ Jer. 52 2^^^ The paragraph is lacking in the text of 2 Kings, which 
otherwise runs parallel to this chapter. I have adopted the conjecture of 
Ewald (see Giesebrecht's commentary) which makes v.^^ refer to the seven- 
teenth year of Nebuchadrezzar instead of the seven of the text. 



298 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

was unsuspicious and so was assassinated. Ishmael then terrorised 
the people. Discovering that he could not permanently hold the 
country against the Babylonians, he started to cross over to Am- 
nion, carrying with him some unwilling followers — among them 
are mentioned some ladies of the royal family. 

Whatever his hopes of establishing a new Judah beyond the 
Jordan, they were soon frustrated. He was met by a stronger, or 
more valiant, band under one Johanan ben Kareah, who was able 
to rescue his captives out of his hand, It was, perhaps, after 
these disorders that the Babylonians carried away the third of 
the detachments of exiles mentioned above.^ 

The disconsolate Judaites, thus finding themselves at liberty, 
looked around for some place where they might live in peace. 
Egypt was the only country that seemed to hold out hopes, and 
they resolved to go thither. Jeremiah advised agains! it, but 
they not only refused to listen — they compelled him to go with 
them. They were weary of their unsettled life, weary of advice, 
weary of Yahweh. They refused to listen any longer to preach- 
ing. When the prophet rebuked them for continued idolatry of 
the *^ Queen of Heaven," they turned sharply upon him and 
declared that when they were faithful to her service it went well 
with them, but that when they gave her up and devoted them- 
selves to Yahweh alone all went wrong. The prophet was con- 
scious in his own soul of the falsity of their reasoning, but he 
seems to have found no answer that he could make to them. 
Tradition, however, ascribes to him a prediction that even in 
Egypt they would be the victims of the relentless Chaldean 
power.^ With this final denunciation of disaster we lose sight 
of the aged prophet. The tradition that he was murdered by 
his unbelieving countrymen is a late inference from the story of 
his life. The Judaites who went to Egypt at this time were 
absorbed in the native population and lost all hold upon the 
prophetic religion. 

^ Doubt has been expressed as to the historicity of this whole account as 
well as of what follow^ — see for example Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt's article 
" Jeremiah " in the Encyclop. Biblica. But the narrative seems to me in its 
main features to bear the marks of historic truth. 

^ Jer. 44. The chapter seems to be added by a later hand. It is not yet 
clearly made out whether Nebuchadrezzar actually conquered Egypt ; cf. 
McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments , III, p. 389 f. 



JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 299 

Had the exiles in Babylonia kept no firmer hold on Yahweh, 
the history of Israel would have closed with the fall of Jerusalem 
in 586 B.C. We have traced the growth of a nation from the 
scattered tribes which entered Canaan seven hundred years before 
this. We have seen the nation under Solomon attain a respecta- 
ble position among the kingdoms of Asia. We have noted also 
the disruption and the consequent loss of power. The two little 
kingdoms could not hope to maintain their independence against 
the powerful empires of the Euphrates valley. Their misguided 
attempts to resist led to their ruin. Nothing in their career 
would give their history greater importance than the history of 
Philistia or of Damascus, had it not been for the religion of Yah- 
weh and the exile. 

The feeble remnant of Judah, however, were in a position to 
carry on the work of the prophets. It was not without reason 
that up to this time the prophets had complained that the peo- 
ple's ears were deaf to their message. In the bonds of tradition, 
in the midst of wars and alarms, pressed upon by the claims of 
Egypt, the claims of Assyria or Babylonia, the claims of the 
party of independence, we can hardly wonder that they could not 
rightly estimate the message of their preachers. But when the 
bonds of tradition were loosened by removal from their land, 
when they were protected from wars and alarms by their very 
insignificance, when politics were no longer a concern to them — 
above all, when the long-threatened blow had fallen, then they 
had time for reflection. The prophets had said Yahweh would 
give over to destruction the place which He had chosen " to 
make His name dwell there." The people would not believe 
that He would th'us deprive Himself of His chosen dwelling. 
But now He had done so. The fearful catastrophe gave them 
two alternatives. Either they must give up their faith in Him 
and hold him to be a God too weak to protect his own, or else 
they must believe in what His prophets had said. No doubt 
many — like the fugitives to Egypt just spoken of — chose the 
former alternative. These became worshippers of other gods, 
loosened the ties of kindred, and became absorbed in the sur- 
rounding heathenism. But some there were who chose the other 
alternative, held on to their faith in Yahweh, and began to value 
more justly the words of the prophets. It is this fraction of the 
people — a sect, a church, no longer a nation — which has in- 



300 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

fluenced the history of the world. And it is with these that we 
must now concern ourselves. 

As to the poor of the people who were left in the district of 
Judah, there is not much to say. For them barbarism was the 
first danger.^ They had all they could do to wring a living out 
of the reluctant soil. The Bedawin from the east and from the 
south overran the country. Edom was crowded upon by the 
Nabateans, and pushed up into Judah. A half-century later 
almost the whole of Judah's territory belonged to these invaders, 
and the bitter hatred of the Edomites, which finds expression in 
later times, dates from this period of encroachment. The people 
of the land seem, indeed, to have kept alive the religion of their 
ancestors. We read how men came with offerings to the site of 
the Temple, after the sacred building had been destroyed.^ They 
came in the garb of mourners, so that we cannot suppose them 
ignorant of the calamity which had fallen. Evidently the sacred- 
ness of the site could not be erased by the destruction of the edi- 
fice. At the place which Yahweh had once chosen, men might 
still hope to approach Him. This was the feeling of these poor 
people. And we may suppose that during the years that followed 
the sacredness of the site was in some way kept in mind — per- 
haps marked by the crude offerings which a peasant or pastoral 
people brings to its God. 

But our main interest is now with the little community in 
Babylonia, which had followed with the keenest sympathy the 
fortunes of their native country, and whose grief at its conquest 
was not the less poignant that they were so far away. 

iCf. Ezek. II ^^ 332*. 

* Jer. 41 ^. These men are said to be from Shiloh and Samaria. 



CHAPTER XV 

THE EXILE 

It has already been told how some years before the fall of Jeru- 
salem, a considerable body of Jerusalemites were carried away by 
Nebuchadrezzar, and settled in Babylonia. It would seem that 
they were not made slaves, and that they were not taken to the 
city of Babylon, whose proletariat we may suppose to have been 
already numerous enough. The indications are that they were 
settled in agricultural communities along one of the great irrigat- 
ing canals, to which the country then owed its extraordinary pro- 
ductiveness. The ''river" Chebar, of our text, was such a 
canal. ^ Babylonian supervision seems not to have gone so far 
as to destroy a certain measure of autonomy. We hear of the 
Sheikhs (Elders), who came to the prophet for advice, and we 
naturally suppose that they preserved something of their traditi- 
onal authority. 

The expectations of these people have already been remarked 
upon. In the face of all human probability their prophets fos- 
tered a hope that they would soon return to their native land. 
Jeremiah bitterly opposed these delusions, and saw plainly that 
the exile would be of long duration. But even he could hardly 
suppose that Yahweh would permanently leave His people in the 
hands of foreigners. For the time being this hope may have 
made the exiles cling together, so that they were able to adapt 
themselves to their new circumstances. But it also made them 
restless and unwilling to listen to the counsel of the more thought- 
ful of their number. It was not till the fall of Jerusalem that they 
were disposed to look the situation squarely in the face. That 
they did so then, and that they were able to adhere to the faith 
of Yahweh, is due to Ezekiel, in some respects the most remark- 
able of Israel's prophets. 

* Ezek. I ^, and elsewhere. References in Kraetzschmar, Handkom- 
mentar (1900), and in Toy's edition of the text {Sacred Books of the Old 
Testament, 1899). 

301 



302 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Ezekiel, like Jeremiah, came of a priestly family. The two 
men, however, were very unlike. Jeremiah was anything but a 
ritualist. The terms in which he speaks of the Ark, of the Tem- 
ple, of the sacrificial service, show that his interest was not in any 
of these. Whether he ever officiated in the sanctuary where he 
so often spoke to the people is doubtful. Ezekiel also may 
never have officiated in the Temple. If so, it was because he 
was carried away when too young to be admitted to a part in 
the service. But he was thoroughly saturated with priestly 
ideas. Ritual off'ences have a much larger part in his indictment 
of the people than is the case with the other prophets. The 
form of his vision is determined by the imagery he has seen in 
the Temple. His elaborate picture of the restored Israel shows 
us a commonwealth which lives by ritual. In him the ethical 
ideas of the older prophets (and of the Book of Instruction) are 
for the first time united with the traditions of the priestly caste. 
From a modern point of view this seems a retrogression. But 
men at a certain stage of culture crave ritual, and (humanly 
speaking) it was necessary that the great moral ideas of the 
prophets should be thus married to outward forms if they were to 
be brought into the life of the people. The result was to shape 
the whole later course of Jewish thought and history. 

Great wit's to madness near allied — this is the thought which 
comes to us as we read of the strange visions and the fantastic ac^ 
tions of this prophet. In fact, Ezekiel, like some other great re- 
ligious geniuses, was a man nervously abnormal. The greatness 
of the crisis through which he had passed so wrought upon him 
that his thought has in it something morbid. And yet the ideas 
which rule him are sane and sound. In fact they are for the 
most part borrowed from the older prophets. His originality is 
in elaborating, sometimes to grotesqueness, what his predecessors 
have said. It will repay us to notice this somewhat in detail. 

Like his predecessors, Ezekiel founded his claim to be heard 
on a distinct call of Yahweh. This call came to him in vision. 
The minuteness with which he describes the vision is what draws 
our attention. It was enough for Isaiah to say that he saw Yah- 
weh in the Temple seated on a lofty throne clothed in robes 
whose skirts filled the House, attended by the seraphim* Eze- 
kiel gives us a description of the cherubim, of the celestial char- 
iot, of the throne and the canopy. From him we learn that the 



THE EXILE 303 

cherubim which bear the throne are composite creatures with 
four faces. They have feet of quadrupeds, wings of birds, hands 
of men. They are a part of the chariot of Yahweh. This char- 
iot is provided with wonderful wheels full of eyes. In the 
midst of the wheels is a mass of flame. Above this is a support 
resting on the heads of the cherubim, and on this support is a 
throne, the occupant of which in the likeness of a man was Yah- 
weh Himself. The brightness of burnished brass, the clearness 
of crystal, and the colours of the rainbow, dazzled the beholder 
and he fell powerless to the ground. 

New as is the vision thus presented to us, its elements are 
furnished by tradition. Of old, Yahweh was the God of the 
storm. On swift clouds He was accustomed to come to the help 
of His people. Of old also the cherubim were His attendants — 
was it not for this reason they were represented in the Temple? 
The wheels, the throne, the fire, the rainbow were all there from 
a logical necessity. 

We should be wrong to suppose that we have here only a liter- 
ary fiction, the result of the prophet's reflection on these features 
of the traditional theophany. No doubt it was a genuine expe- 
rience which he describes — whether in the body or out of the 
body he would not be able to tell. And it would not be hard 
for him to discover a gracious purpose in it. He was in a strange 
land, far from the sanctuary which his heart yearned for. He 
was tempted to feel — as his compatriots already felt — that Yah- 
weh was far away. But by the vision he was taught that Yah- 
weh could come to His servant though in a far land. 

This mobility of Yahweh was the more important in that some 
of the Judaites still cherished the fixed idea that He could not 
permit the destruction of His Temple. Though Jerusalem had 
once been forced to surrender, and though these very people had 
been forced to go into exile, still they persisted that the city was 
indestructible. Ezekiel, for his part, was sure that the city was 
to be destroyed. What would become of Yahweh was a question 
answered by the celestial chariot. With this at His command 
He could retire at His will to the desert of His ancient sojourn, 
to abide there till His time to restore His people should come. 
The prophetic theory that the sins of the people had made His 
land intolerable to Him was thus most emphatically presented 
and enforced. The shock of the final catastrophe was thus in a 



304 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

measure, also, prepared for, and the foundation laid for a new 
hope.^ 

First of all, however, the false confidence of the exiles must be 
shaken ; and Ezekiel perceives that his message is a message of 
mourning, lamentation, and woe. This message is delivered him 
by Yahweh in the form of a book, and in materialistic symbolism 
he receives it by eating it.^ He is told that he is sent to a rebell- 
ious house. But he is to speak to them whether they will hear 
or whether they will forbear. In fact, they at first met the 
prophet with contradiction and scoffing. But the message came 
to its rights after the fall of Jerusalem. 

For this first period of his activity the prophet spared no pains 
to enforce the declaration that Jerusalem is to be destroyed. His 
endeavours to make this plain were nothing less than grotesque. 
At one time he took a clay tablet such as the Babylonians used 
for writing upon. On this he drew the plan of Jerusalem. Then 
he made it the centre of a miniature siege — threw up earthworks 
about it, made the semblance of a hostile camp, set up the bat- 
tering-rams. Between himself and it he held a sheet of iron. 
The performance scarcely needed an interpreter. As he, the 
creator of the toy city, was ordering its siege and holding the 
sheet of iron between himself and it, so Yahweh the ruler of Jeru- 
salem was arranging the attack on His own city and was making 
Himself impervious to its appeals for mercy. We may imagine 
the effect of such a symbolical action on the part of the prophet.' 

By making a vile bread of grain, beans, spelt, and lentils, 
mixed together, by eating of this a fixed ration each day, and by 
drinking also a slender allowance of water, the prophet illustrated 
the straits to which Jerusalem would be reduced in the siege.* 
After this was sufficiently set forth he shaved his hair and his 

^ In my discussion I assume the substantial unity and genuineness of the 
Book of Ezekiel. Traces of editorial elaboration are somewhat more numer- 
ous than has been usually admitted, and I have some reserve in regard to the 
middle section of the book — Chapters 25-32. 

2 Ezek. 3 ^-3. Similar language is used in Jer. 15 ^^. 

^ I assume, of course, that this (ch. 4 ^-'^) and the other actions were liter- 
ally carried out as described. Sonie readers will doubt the literalness of the 
prophet's lying on his side 190 days (as should be read instead of 390 of the 
text). But a prolonged illness might easily realise this feature of the vision, 

* His protest (4 ^*) against part of the direction shows his carefulness in 
matters of ritual observance. 



THE EXILE 305 

beard with a sharp sword. A third part of the hair thus obtained 
he burned in the midst of his miniature city; a third he smote 
hither and yonder with the sword ; the most of the remainder he 
scattered to the winds. A few hairs he took and bound in his skirt. 
But of these again a portion was thrown into the fire. Again 
the symbohsm is quite clear : A third of Yahweh's people are to 
perish by famine and pestilence in the siege ; another third will 
fall by the sword ; the remainder will be scattered to all the 
winds of heaven ; even the few who seem to be spared — the ex- 
iles* — will not really be safe from destruction. All this will hap- 
pen "that they may know that I am Yahweh " — that is, that 
they may know Him in His essential nature as a God of justice. 
If now a bill of particulars is called for, to show wherein Judah 
has deserved so much severity, Ezekiel is ready with an answer. 
In vision he is taken to Jerusalem and made witness of what is 
going on there. Taken by the Spirit to the Temple he is allowed 
to inspect what ought to be the sanctuary of Yahweh. Yahweh 
Himself points out how it is polluted. Near the north gate he 
sees the idol that provokes jealousy — evidently an image of another 
than Israel's God. The abuses corrected by Josiah had evidently 
been revived by his successors, but what god had received the 
honour of a place in the Temple is unknown to us. Next, the 
prophet is taken into a secret chamber within the Temple, on 
whose walls are portrayed in relief all sorts of animals and reptiles. 
Before them stand seventy of the chief men of Judah, at their head 
one Jaazaniah. Each man has a censer in his hand and they are 
offering incense to the pictures on the walls. Evidently we 
have here some secret cult, totemistic in its nature. We are re- 
minded of the ancient serpent worship, banished by Hezekiah, 
but we are also reminded that a strong Egyptian party existed 
in Jerusalem, the members of which may well have formed a 
society for the practice of Egyptian mysteries.^ The idolaters 
are represented justifying themselves on the ground that Yahweh 
has forsaken the land — a significant indication of the effect 
which the present calamities had had on many of the people. 

^ Or does he mean those left in Canaan who seem to have survived the 
perils of the siege ? The passage is 5 ^"*. The same lesson is set forth in 
another way in 12 ^"^°. 

2 Bertholet in his commentary advocates the Egyptian origin of this cult. 
Others think of Babylonian influence. The passage is Ezek. 8^-^^ 



306 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

The horrified visitor is next taken to the north gate, and there 
he sees a company of women seated on the ground weeping for 
Tammuz. Weeping for a god who has been slain is one of the 
acts of worship in various religions. Tammuz is one of the gods 
whose myth passed over to the Greeks, among whom he is known 
as Adonis. His worship in Syria is very ancient and it is possi- 
ble that it was naturalised in Judah at an early day. For the 
present reference, however, it is sufficent to assume that he was 
recently introduced from Babylon.^ While this heathenism was 
going on, the prophet saw also a group of twenty-five men stand- 
ing in the very entrance of the temple, between the vestibule and 
the altar. But instead of being there to worship Yahweh, they 
had their backs to Him, as if in deliberate insult, while their 
worship was paid to the rising sun. We have already read of 
this cult among those banished by Josiah. As if this were not 
enough, Yahweh declares that over the whole land similar rites 
send up the stench of their offerings into His nostrils. 

The destruction of the city was the logical conclusion of such 
a state of things, and so it was shown to the prophet in his vision. 
Ezekiel, however, was a man to whom the justice of Yahweh was 
manifest in His dealing with individuals. Shall the righteous 
perish with the wicked? This was a question which had for 
some time been agitating the more thoughtful men.^ Jeremiah 
was evidently exercised by it. Ezekiel has thought it out. 
He is strictly logical in affirming categorically that when the 
wicked are punished, the righteous will be spared. And so in 
his vision he hears a command given to an angel to put a mark 
on the righteous men in the city, that the executioners of the 
divine wrath may know whom to spare. When they have been 
marked the decree goes forth ; the destroying angels slay old and 
young, sparing only those who have the mark in their foreheads. 
Then fire is taken from the altar and showered upon the devo- 
ted city. The cherubim in the celestial chariot flap their wings 
with thunderous sound to show that they are restive at being kept 

^ Tammuz, the favourite of Ishtar, is the god of the spring vegetation, and 
his death is bewailed when the powerful summer sun causes the herbs to 
A^ither — see Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 482 f., 547; 
Zimmern, m Keilinschr. u. Altes Test} W., p. 397; Frazer, The Golden 
Bough, I., p. 278 ff. 

' Cf . what was said about the story of Abraham's intercession (above, p. 250. ) 



THE EXILE 307 

in such a scene. When all has been ordered, Yahweh mounts 
His seat and takes His departure. On the Mount of Olives He 
stops to take a last lingering look at His now desolate habitation, 
and then — away ! 

Jerusalem's sin has made Jerusalem's destruction inevitable — 
this is the constant theme of the prophet during this part of his 
ministry, and he enforces it in all conceivable ways. At one 
time the false confidence of those remaining in the city is derided. 
*' They say of themselves : We are the flesh and this city is the 
caldron ; the broth has been poured off, but we are safe." ^ The 
broth that has been poured off represents the exiles who have been 
carried away. Those who have escaped deportation regard them- 
selves as the substance of the nation — bone and muscle — and they 
think that as the pot protects the flesh from the violence of the 
fire so the walls of Jerusalem protect them from destruction. The 
prophet states the case so as to show the absurdity.^ 

Ezekiel sometimes gives an unexpected turn to the parables of 
the older prophets. Isaiah had compared Judah to a vineyard 
planted by Yahweh, and we may suppose that this figure had be- 
come current among the people. That Judah is the vine and 
Yahweh the keeper of the vineyard would be a comforting thought 
in the midst of affliction. But Ezekiel puts the thought in anew 
light : ^' What is the vine among the trees? A mere twig among 
the trees of the forest ! Is timber taken from it for any work ? 
Is even a peg to hang things on made from it ? Suppose, now, 
it has been thrown upon the fire and both its ends and its 
middle are charred ; is it then good for anything ? When it 
was sound it was of no use ; how much less when the fire has 
charred it ! " ^ The vine of Yahweh was confessedly of no 
value for its fruit. But a barren vine is the most worthless of 
plants. Such was Judah even at its best. But now its best 
has been destroyed by the deportation of Jehoiachin. One 
cannot ascribe any value to a half-burned twig. 

Less to our taste — but not offensive to oriental thought — is 

^Chapter 11^ -^2. The messianic conclusion of the chapter is certainly a 
later insertion. 

^ In the later expansion of the parable (24^"'^) the prophet compares those 
that are left in Jerusalem to the rust that clings to the caldron and which 
must be burned off. 

' Ezek. 15 ^"^ Israel's place among the nations is a very modest one in 
Ezekiel's eyes. 



308 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Ezekiel's development of the prophetic metaphor in which Israel 
appears as the wife of Yahweh, or in which Israel and Judah ap- 
pear as His wives. In Hosea, who first introduces this figure, we 
have a delicate self-restraint. He contents himself with declar- 
ing the unfaithfulness without going into a detailed description. 
Jeremiah is less refined in that he plainly compares the idolatrous 
passion of Judah to the blind sexual instinct of an animal. Eze- 
kiel paints the actions of the shameless woman without reserve, as 
the ancient law stripped her naked and exposed her to the ribald 
scoffs of the vulgar. In this description ^ he not only shows more 
bitterness than his predecessors : his revulsion of feeling carries 
him so far that he condemns the whole past of the nation. Hosea 
and Jeremiah recognise a period when Israel was faithful — the 
first love of the honeymoon. Ezekiel seems to go so far as to 
assert that Israel was erring from the very first — her very blood 
was tainted, her father was an Amorite and her mother a Hittite. 
Even in her youth she had prostituted herself to the Egyptians. 

In this sweeping condemnation of all the past, Ezekiel intro- 
duced a mode of thought which became prominent in later times, 
What we now note is the interest with which the exiles followed 
the fortunes of their native country, the certainty with which the 
prophet foresaw the destruction that was coming, and the pains he 
took to justify the ways of God to man. As the final revolt under 
Zedekiah was planned, the prophet was outspoken in his condem- 
nation. The fate of the rebel was sealed by his unfaithfulness.^ 
More of human sympathy is shown by the dirge over the unhappy 
princes who have been carried into captivity — the two lion's cubs 
trained by their mother to hunt the prey, but captured and caged, 
and languishing in confinement.^ 

The certainty of Jerusalem's fall and the justice of Yahweh in 
destroying it is the constant theme of this first period. As the 
end approaches, the prophet's cry becomes a shriek. He sees the 
king of Babylon marching with drawn sword. As he approaches 

^ Chapters i6 and 23. 

^ Chapter 17, already mentioned in connexion with the life of Zedekiah. 
That a cedar branch grows into a vine need not disturb us. The teaching 
of the parable is perfectly plain. 

^ Chapter 19. The dirge is the most distinctly poetic of Ezekiel's com- 
positions. The mother of the two young lions is the royal house. Some 
suppose, however, that the queen-mother, Hamutal, two of whose sons came 
to the throne (Jehoahaz and Zedekiah) is intended. 



THE EXILE 309 

Palestine he consults his oracle/ to see which country he shall 
first attack. The oracle indicates Jerusalem, and the city's 
fate is sealed. The sword in Nebuchadrezzar's hand becomes 
Yahweh's sword, the instrument of His vengeance on a renegade 
people. And when the end had come the prophet was made an 
example to the people by his personal bereavement. The day 
before the news of Jerusalem's fall came to the exiles, Ezekiel's 
wife was suddenly taken from him by death. So great was his 
grief that he forgot the conventional mourning customs, and sat 
like one turned to stone. And when the people manifested their 
surprise, he came to the consciousness that he was only a sign and 
a parable. Great as was his grief, so great should theirs be. 
And so it turned out. A fugitive from Jerusalem made his way 
over the long desert road, and brought the terrible news that Je- 
rusalem had indeed fallen, and that Temple and dwellings had 
been destroyed. Personal bereavement was in the message for 
many, for they had relatives and friends in the far-off land. But 
their grief was more than personal. They had lost home, and 
native country, and hope, and the God in whom they had trusted.' 

For those who were not permanently alienated from the religion 
in which they had been brought up, this crisis laid a new duty 
upon Ezekiel. Hitherto his message had been mourning and 
lamentation and woe. It was now time to comfort those who 
had been smitten, and to bind up the hearts that had been 
broken. From this time on he not only changes the tone of his 
message, but he speaks with a freedom which he had not hitherto 
known. We may well suppose that during the period when he 
was dreading the calamity which he foresaw, when also his people 
heard him with incredulity, he would often find it impossible to 
speak his mind. During this period he had long fits of silence, 
which seemed to come from a real physical inability. When the 
word of Jerusalem's fall came, the nervous shock seems to have 
affected him physically, so that this debility troubled him no 
longer. He had also the advantage of fulfilled prophecy on his 
side. The false prophets and the necromancers who had contra- 
dicted and blasphemed were thoroughly silenced. He himself 
could speak as one who was accredited by the Almighty. 

The first danger was the danger of despair and its consequent 

* By the divining arrows, Ezek. 21 21-23 

' Ibid. 24 ^^2^. The paragraph rightly closes the first division of the book. 



310 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

apathy. The people were now sure that they were rejected by 
Yahweh. In a certain sense Ezekiel had contributed to this im- 
pression. He had insisted that the guilt of the people was re- 
sponsible for their calamity. Judah was ruined because she had 
been incurably unfaithful. This was in line with the threaten- 
ings of the earlier prophets and with the Book of Instruction. 
The land of Yahweh had been desecrated, and was therefore 
given over to destruction.^ The despair of the people was the 
logical result of this teaching: "Our iniquities and our sins 
weigh us down, and we are rotting away in them " is their cry. 
The disease was incurable, because its roots in the past could not 
be reached. Or they put it in another way in a saying which 
passed from mouth to mouth: "The fathers have eaten sour 
grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." The case 
was one of inherited guilt. The present generation must suffer 
for the sins of those who had preceded.^ 

When the traditional doctrine thus became a source of weak- 
ness, Ezekiel did not hesitate to combat it in the most forcible 
language he could command. In his vision of the sins of Jeru- 
salem, he had refused to believe that the righteous would perish 
with the wicked. So sure of his ground was he that he shut his 
eyes to the facts of common life. In this immediate connexion 
indeed he seems to admit an exception, perhaps on the theory 
that the exception proves the rule. The people who actually 
escaped destruction at the fall of Jerusalem and who joined the 
exiles in Babylon, did not answer his description. So he af- 
firmed that in this case Yahweh had spared a few of the sinners 
in order, by actual sample, to convince the exiles of the quality 
of their people. In this way alone could they be convinced 
that the punishment was deserved.^ Allowing this exception, 
however, he yet makes the most sweeping declaration^" all 
souls are mine ; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the 

' In addition to what has already been cited, note chapter 6, against the 
mountains of Israel. 

' Ezek. ;^^ ^^. Chapter i8 which treats the subject most thoroughly is now 
among the earlier prophecies, and we may suppose that the saying which 
furnishes the text was coined before the fall of Jerusalem and in view of the 
first deportation. But the order of the discourses in this section is not 
original, and this chapter was probably inserted out of its chronological 
position. 

*I6id., 14"-".^ 



THE EXILE 311 

son. He that sins shall die. A man who is righteous and acts 
justly shall live. But if he begets a son who is lawless and a 
shedder of blood — the son certainly shall not live, he shall die a 
violent death, and his blood shall be on himself." ^ The reverse 
case is also presented. The bad father may beget a good son. 
The rule (according to the prophet) applies with equal certainty 
— the good son lives because of his own virtues ; the bad father 
is not advantaged by his son's merits any more than the son is 
condemned for his father's vices. Every man is treated strictly 
according to his individual conduct. 

We readily see how Ezekiel came to advocate so one-sided a 
theory. Now that the blow had fallen he was making every ef- 
fort to encourage his people. What he meant to enforce was the 
possibility of repentance even in the worst extremity. While 
there is life there is hope. Yahweh has no pleasure in the death 
of the wicked, but that he turn from his ways and live. And 
that life and death are, in the prophet's view, physical life and 
death is obvious. The world beyond the grave gave him no 
prospect of rewards and punishments. If he were to find justice 
in Yahweh' s dealings with men, he must find it in this life. 
Under these limitations we see how his theory of individualistic 
retribution was a logical necessity. 

Before leaving the chapter we are considering, we may notice 
the nature of the righteousness which Ezekiel demands. We 
have already seen that his tendency is ritualistic. We expect 
him to emphasise the people's departure from the true worship. 
And so he does. In each case he puts among the sins of which 
men may be guilty eatmg upon the mountains, by which he 
means violation of the Deuteronomistic injunction of one altar. 
But it is also noticeable that he preserves the good old prophetic 
tradition which regards sins against one's neighbour as sins against 
God. Adultery, oppression, extortion, usury are the things 
which bring wrath upon the one who practises them, while res- 
toration of pledges, distribution to the needy, clothing the naked, 
giving honest judgment between man and man, are the things 
which characterise the righteous man and which bring him Yah- 

' The whole of chapter 18 is devoted to the development of this theory. 
There is no attempt at argument, only repeated affirmation of the same thing. 
The prolixity of the treatment shows how the prophet was wrestling with his 
thought. 



312 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

weh's favour. So when he closes his Hst of virtues with walking 
in Yahweh's statutes ajid keeping His ordifiajices we must inter- 
pret the language according to the general tenor of his thought. 
He stands, in fact, upon the basis of the Book of Instruction. 
The idea of a ritual law is foreign to him, though he himself gave 
the stimulus to the formulation of such a law. 

Returning now to the doctrine of retribution — a doctrine which 
gave later thinkers many an hour of internal conflict — we may 
notice that for Ezekiel's contemporaries it did have a salutary 
effect. They stood at the parting of the ways. The old national 
religion could not endure after the death of the nation. If men 
were to retain any religion at all (aside from the crass heathen- 
ism which tempted them on all sides), they must learn to come 
individually into relation with their God. Of course the indi- 
vidual Judaite had always a dim consciousness of this relation. 
And in the great religious leaders, this consciousness was more 
than dim— it was a vivid realisation of the presence of Yahweh. 
This we are sure of in such a man as Isaiah. But these men stood 
in an official relation to Yahweh as His mouthpieces. The 
officers and courtiers are in personal intercourse with their mon- 
arch, whereas the nation at large can claim no such privilege. 
The older prophets had preached on the basis of Yahweh 's rela- 
tion to the nation as a whole. They scarcely raise the question 
whether the individual can have any apportionment of fate except 
as he shares the lot of the whole nation. Even Jeremiah, though 
he has been called the discoverer of individual religion, does not 
get beyond this. His individual and personal relation to Yah- 
weh is beyond doubt. But the thought which oppresses him and 
with which he agonises is that in spite of this intimacy he is in- 
volved in the fate of his people. 

With Ezekiel the circumstances forced a new consideration of 
the problem. The individual comes to the front when the na- 
tion is no more. The prophet boldly declares that each man 
has his fate in his own hands ; each is directly responsible to 
Yahweh. The supremacy of this thought in later Judaism needs 
no demonstration. The measure of Ezekiel's insistence upon 
his doctrine is the rigidity with which he applies it to himself. 
In the instruction which he receives concerning his office we see 
this finely brought out. He regards his office as that of a watch- 
man on the city walls — not to call the whole city to arms, but 



THE EXILE 313 

to warn the individual of his danger. We think of the walled 
town liable to attack from guerilla bands. The watchman 
on the wall, as he sees the dust-cloud on the horizon, cries out 
to the travellers approaching the gates, so that they may make 
haste and gain the place of safety. If the sword threatens and 
the alarm is given and the unheeding loiterer is overtaken and 
slain, then his death lies at his own door. But if the watchman 
neglects his duty, gives no warning, lets the unsuspecting traveller 
fall into the hands of the enemy, then the watchman will be held 
responsible — the blood is upon his head.^ The doctrine of per- 
sonal accountability could be no more strongly put. The work 
of the prophet is the care of souls, and for each of those com- 
mitted to him there will be a reckoning according to the meas- 
ure of his opportunity. 

What has been said will show something of the ferment of 
new ideas which began to work among the exiles. Ezekiel's im- 
portance as the exponent of these ideas is evident. But his in- 
fluence does not stop with these. Such a man could not be w^ith- 
out hopes for the future. The justice of Yahweh might be 
indicated by the punishment of His rebellious people. But this 
could not be the end of history. He might temporarily with- 
draw from a Temple too polluted for His dwelling ; but the 
mind refused to think of Him as for ever dwelling apart from 
those who love and worship Him. This would be an abdication 
of His place as God of the whole earth, an abandonment of His 
world to the very rivals who had excited His jealousy. He must 
have plans for the future. 

Such thoughts enable us to follow with something like sym- 
pathy the constructive work which Ezekiel has left on record in 
the second part of his book, and which, viewed apart from the 
man and his time, has so often puzzled the student. The general 
thought which we must bear in mind is the restoration of Israel in 
a new and purified commonwealth. The motive of such a restora- 
tion on the part of Yahweh is the vindication of His name. The 
fact that He had punished His own people was misunderstood by 
the heathen. They thought Him too weak or too indifferent to 
protect His own. For His name's sake, therefore, and not be- 
cause of any merit in His people. He will undertake a restoration. 
And the thoroughness with which He will do this is seen in the 



314 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

elaborateness of Ezekiel's scheme. The subject is treated in three 
divisions. First comes the restoration of the people to their 
land ; then, the treatment of the heathen aggressors ; finally, 
the organisation of the new nation in such a way as to guard 
against the errors of the past. The whole is appropriately pre- 
faced by the chapter on the prophet as watchman which we have 
already considered, and by a warning to the people to be doers 
of the word and not hearers only.^ 

Without confining ourselves strictly to the prophet's own order 
we may look at the details of his picture. First of all it should be 
noticed that he expects the total duration of the exile to be forty 
years.'' This is, of course, a round number ; but he probably 
expects the generation that follows his own to see the return. 

The land of Judah must first be restored, for the curse of Yah- 
weh has fallen on the soil. Hence we find a promise that the 
mountains are to be visited and that new fruitfulness is to be their 
portion for the sake of Israel and for the sake of Yahweh's name 
— for the nations say: ''This is Yahweh's people, yet they had 
to leave His land." But this desolate land will be made like 
the gardan of Eden.^ 

More than fruitfulness of soil is necessary for the happiness of 
a people. This had been proved by the old days, both in Israel 
and Judah. ' ' Where wealth accumulates and men decay ' ' was 
the standing characterisation of Israel's prosperity on the part of 
the prophets. A just government is necessary, or the fairest lands 
will languish. Ezekiel is quite aware of this and sets it before us 
in a chapter devoted to the shepherds of Israel. The shepherds 
should care for the flock — so should the rulers care for their peo- 
ple. The monarchy is in its very idea an institution that de- 
fends the weak against the powerful. Too often the king becomes 
a new oppressor, taking the part of the rapacious noble against 
the oppressed peasant. Such had been the case in Judah, as 

1 That Ezekiel was nerved for greater activity by the news of the fall of 
Jerusalem is indicated in this chapter — even his physical debility seems to 
have been removed {;^'^ ^^). That his prestige was increased we have had 
occasion to note. He had, however, the common experience of preachers — - 
in the willingness of his hearers to be entertained, and their unwillingness to 
practice what he preached (33^""^^). 

^ The prophet lies on his side forty days — a day for a year — to bear the 
sin of Judah (4 ^). 

' Ezek. 36 20. 35 . cf. also 34 ^c-so. 



THE EXILE 315 

Ezekiel had seen exemplified in the case of Jehoiakim. The 
shepherds had fed themselves and not the flock. They had not 
defended the flock from enemies without, nor had they kept the 
peace within the fold. Among sheep as among men the stiong 
crowd the weak out of the best pasture, keep them from the 
water, wantonly foul and mar what was intended for the good of 
all. Such a king as Jehoiakim must be made impossible in the 
future. Yahweh will make such a king impossible by Himself 
assuming the government and taking the part of the oppressed. 
The human monarch is to remain (as we shall see) but he is to 
be shorn of his power to oppress.^ The new David is to be not 
king but prince — a title which Ezekiel consistently gives him 
throughout his discussion. 

And now for the foreign nations — how much heart-break they 
had occasioned the true believers. They were doing Yahweh's 
will, to be sure, and yet they were moved by their own evil pas- 
sions. Has the justice of Yahweh nothing to do with them? 
Isaiah has already answered that when Yahweh has made due use 
of Assyria as the instrument of His chastisement. He will punish 
the pride of its stout heart. So it had come to pass, for Assyria 
had fallen ; but the new scourge had been as godless as the old. 
There must be a day of vengeance for him also and for all who 
had taken part in the spoliation of Judah. This we must suppose 
to be Ezekiel's faith, and he does not hesitate to express it. Cu- 
riously, he nowhere denounces the Babylonian power. Was he 
afraid of the police? Or did he think it unwise to arouse hopes 
among his countrymen that might lead to unrest and sedition ? 
Or was he impressed with the good order and prosperity the ex- 
iles were enjoying under Nebuchadrezzar, so that he regarded the 
magistrate as the power ordained of God ? We ask in vain. 
What stands out prominently is the enmity which the prophet 
feels against Edom. This can readily be accounted for by the 
fact that Edom was Judah' s nearest neighbour, rejoiced most 
openly over her fall, and hastened to invade her weakened terri- 
tory. In revenge the prophet declares that Edom's land shall 
become a desert.^ 

' Chapter 34. Yahweh the good shepherd is a common figure in the Old 
Testament. Perhaps the earliest passages are in Jeremiah. 

' Chapter 35 appropriately forms the preface to the promise to the moun- 
tains of Israel. I have purposely left out of view the group of prophecies 



3l6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Instead of insisting on the separate punishment of the various 
nations which have been hostile to Judah, Ezekiel rises to a 
grander conception. The peace of Yahweh's land had been dis- 
turbed by more terrible powers than Edom or Moab. In the far 
north was a reservoir of barbarians whence the Scythian armies 
had poured forth to desolate the face of the civilised earth. Not 
until they had been taught a lesson by the signal judgment of 
God could these barbarian hordes be expected to refrain from 
further attacks. The prophet had himself in his boyhood heard 
of these invaders as a present terror. Yahweh's name would be 
best vindicated by a new irruption visibly checked by His inter- 
vention. So we read the prophecy of Gog, and find in it the 
summing up of all that Yahweh can be expected to do against all 
the Gentiles. Gog ^ is the leader of the heathen powers, espe- 
cially those terrible ones in the north and east.' He is the in- 
carnation of hostility to Israel. His army is held in reserve for 
the last great crisis in history. When the time comes he is to 
be led forth by the will of Yahweh and make the final invasion 
of Israel's land : ''After many days thou shalt receive a commis- 
sion ; at the end of years thou shalt come against a land recov- 
ered from its desolation, against those gathered from many na- 
tions who dwell in security, all of them. Thou shalt come up 
like a storm, like a cloud to cover the land, thou and all thy 
hordes." ^ In all this — as was the case with Assyria — the invader 
is moved by his own evil desires. He sees Israel dwelling in 
unwalled villages and thinks to find an easy prey. But the peo- 
ple that trust in Yahweh shall not be put to shame. Their de- 
liverance will be sure, and so signal that none can misinterpret 
it. By a great earthquake a panic will be brought upon the in- 

against the foreign nations which now form the middle section of the book 
(chapters 25-32) because I am not satisfied that in their present form they 
are by Ezekiel. 

^ Gog and Magog, the phrase which is found in the New Testament (Rev. 
20^) and which has passed over into Christian and Mohammedan tradition, 
is due to a misunderstanding. 

^ It is strange to find Nubia and Libya in his armies. Probably there is 
some corruption of the text which originally named two northern or eastern 
nations ; cf. Toy in his edition of the text (Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old 
Tes tame fit). 

^ Ezek. 38 ^. That the hosts of Antichrist, or of the hostile world-power, 
are held in reserve for the last great Day is a common feature in Christian 
and Mohammedan tradition. 



THE EXILE 317 

vader. As in the Midianite army at the time of Gideon, each 
man's sword will be against his fellow. The slaughter will be 
completed by pestilence, and by a hail of fire and brimstone 
from heaven. 

The first advantage of this programme is that it vindicates the 
earlier prophets. Ezekiel had before him predictions of disaster 
on the enemies of Israel which had not been fulfilled. By their 
non-fulfilment the name of Yahweh had suffered — as though He 
were unable to carry out what He had threatened. Not only 
will this reproach be removed by the great Day that is to come, 
but Yahweh's name will be revered over the earth: ''That the 
nations may know me, in that by thee I show my divinity before 
their eyes." ^ His power and His care for His people will be 
universally recognised. 

We must not leave this prophecy without noticing one char- 
acteristic of Ezekiel which it brings into great prominence. This 
is his carefulness in matters of detail, and especially on the side 
of ritual. After the annihilation of the hosts of Gog, the land is 
covered with their corpses. These are repulsive not only to sense 
and sight, but also to religion, for the religion of Yahweh stamps 
the dead as unclean ; contact with them unfits a man for worship. 
Special pains must be taken, therefore, to remove every vestige 
of the great slaughter. Ravenous birds and beasts are allowed to 
act as scavengers. But it is ordained that when these have 
wrought their work, a great valley shall be chosen on the other 
side of the Jordan, whither shall be carried all that remains. This 
work will occupy seven months, and, in order that it may be 
thorough, inspectors are to be appointed to go through the land, 
and mark every bone not yet disposed of. A final gleaning will 
then remove every trace of pollution.^ 

The practical and prosaic sense of Ezekiel in the midst of this 
grandiose description is manifested by his theory of the captured 
arms of Gog and his host. These arms are of no use to Israel 

' "In that I show myself holy before their eyes " gives a wrong impres- 
sion. Holiness as the word is commonly understood is a moral attribute. 
What the prophet has in mind is rather one of the natural attributes (to 
speak theologically) — the superhuman power of Yahweh. For this reason 
I translate shozv my divinity instead of sanctify myself, or show 7ny self holy. 
Yahweh's holiness is precisely that quality which makes Him different from 
man, His divinity. The passage is 38 ^^. 

» Ezek. 39 8-15. 



3l8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

because it is a peaceful nation. Consisting of spears, bows, arrows, 
and clubs, these weapons will furnish Israel with fuel for the space 
of seven years. This feature of the prediction is, of course, not 
purely economic. The length of time taken in consuming these 
weapons, as well as the length of time required for the burial of 
the bodies, is designed to impress the reader with the greatness of 
the catastrophe. To the little band of exiles such a judgment 
upon the Gentiles would indeed prove the greatness of their God. 
In fact, the hope of such a great cataclysmic interference in the 
history of the world has sustained oppressed and persecuted be- 
lievers in many a dark hour from Ezekiel's time onward. The 
last judgment, the end of the age, the battle with Antichrist, the 
great Day — this is a conception )vhich is coming to the front 
continually in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Its definite for- 
mulation we owe to Ezekiel.^ 

It needs no demonstration that Ezekiel in all this is thinking 
strictly of a restored Israel on earth. His imagination does not 
reach to a new heaven and a new earth, still less to a spiritual 
heaven of everlasting bliss. This needs to be borne in mind in 
considering another vision of his, which has quite as powerfully 
influenced later theology — the vision of dry bones. In this vision 
the prophet is brought into a valley filled with human bones from 
which the flesh has long since disappeared. He is made the herald 
of the divine will, and as he pronounces the words of which he is 
the organ, bone seeks out his fellow-bone, sinews and flesh come 
upon the articulated frames, breath comes into the new-formed 
bodies, and instead of the mass of fragments, a great army of liv- 
ing men stand upon their feet.^ All that the prophet received 
by this vision, and all that he intended to convey to his contemp- 
oraries was an assurance that the dead nation should live. Judah 
did indeed seem dead beyond the possibility of resurrection. The 
exiles avowed in so many words, that they were only the dry 
bones of a once-living organism, that their ho])e had perished, that 
their ruin was a present fact. The promise is given to those who 

^ The Day of Yahweh was to the older prophets (as we have seen) a day 
of judgment upon Israel. Ezekiel revives the old popular view that it was 
a visitation upon Israel's enemies. His originality is seen in the definiteness 
with which he presents his picture. In its earliest form the conception is 
mythological. 

2 Ezek. 37^"^°. The later doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was no 
doubt mightily helped by the vividness of this picture. 



THE EXILE 319 

speak and feel in this way. The word is : ''I will bring you out 
of your graves and will bring you to the land of Israel 
and will put my spirit in you and you shall live." Such a work 
of national restoration would be as great a miracle as to restore 
the dry bones to life. 

Ezekiel's hope, then, expressed itself very definitely along these 
lines : there is to be a restoration ; the nation will revive ; it 
will be put into possession of Yahweh's land; the land itself will 
be renovated; by a signal judgment the heathen will be taught 
Yahweh's power and will respect His people's peace and integrity. 
But a troublesome question still remains : Can the Israel of the 
future be trusted to do any better than the Israel of the past had 
done? On this point the prophet must have had many misgiv- 
ings. He and his contemporaries were led by their experiences 
totally to condemn the old Israel. He does not hesitate to say 
that the bride of Yahweh had been adulterous from her youth. 
This is the attitude of later Judaism — which here again shows the 
strength of Ezekiel's influence. Suppose, now, that the nation is 
restored according to promise. What is to prevent its going 
astray again ? Ezekiel is aware, as all theologians are aware, that 
the natural heart cannot be trusted. It needs the special grace 
of God if it is to be kept in the right way. The assurance that 
the failure of the past will not be repeated in the future must 
come from Yahweh Himself. And so at the forefront of his re- 
newed Israel the prophet puts a promise of gracious influence in 
the heart of man : ''I will give you a new heart, and will put a 
new spirit within you ; I will take away the heart of stone, and 
will give you a heart of flesh ; I will put my spirit within you, 
and will cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my 
judgments and do them.'" Without such gracious intervention 
the history of the past would repeat itself. 

One would think that this were sufficient. When it is God 
that works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure we may 
be trusted to work out our own salvation. But like most religious 

• Ezek. 36 2« » ; cf. 1 1 '^ I suppose the similar promises in Jeremiah (24 '', 
31^3^ 32 3^) to be later insertions in that book and dependent on Ezekiel, 
rather than the reverse. The complaint of the prophets concerning the 
hardness of their hearers' hearts, was a complaint of stupidity of brain, and 
the promise must be interpreted accordingly— the people will become quick 
to apprehend the word of God. 



320 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

leaders, Ezekiel reasons in another way. The spirit may be will- 
ing but the flesh is weak. Therefore the flesh must be helped by 
those external and ceremonial regulations which will prevent at 
least external violations of the law. There must be organisation 
and government — this is the key to the great concluding vision 
of Ezekiel's book. And this government must be ecclesiastical 
rather than civil — this we may understand from the prophet's 
antecedents and from his observation of civil government. 

It is a concession to tradition that there is to be a monarch. 
But the monarch is to be shorn of most of his power, as we have 
already seen.^ He becomes, in fact, the nursing father of the 
Church and even that only to a limited degree. He is to receive 
a very considerable landed property in the new division of the 
country. This is to secure him a sufficient income so that he 
will not need to levy taxes — the oriental feeling always has been 
that the monarch is rich enough to give presents rather than to 
exact them. The prince, as he is consistently called by Ezekiel, 
is to have power to levy one small and strictly limited tax and 
this he must apply to the support of the daily worship, and of the 
festival offerings.^ To guard against his intrusion in matters of 
religion he is treated as a layman and not even allowed to enter 
the sanctuary. He is apparently to take cognisance of civil 
affairs, as he is exhorted to see that a uniform standard of weight 
and measure is enforced. But his jurisdiction is not supposed to 
be very extensive because so many cases are reserved for the 
arbitration of the priests. 

Furthermore, we have to note that the new commonwealth is 
simply an adjunct to the restored Temple of Yahweh. To pre- 
vent the old tribal jealousies, the land is to be divided anew 
among the twelve tribes. All Israel is to be located in Canaan 
proper, between the Jordan and the sea. The exposure of the 
transjordanic country to contamination from the desert is, per- 
haps, the reason for this. The increased fruitfulness of the land 
will compensate for the restricted area. Each tribe is to have a 

^ In 34^^ ' we find a promise that a new David shall rule over the reunited 
Israel. I doubt, however, whether this is Ezekiel's own declaration. 
Some similar Messianic sections in the early part of the book seem also to 
be later insertions. 

^ An income-tax in kind — one-sixtieth part of the grain crop, one per cent, 
of the oil and one-half per cent, of the cattle — is assessed by the prince, and 
from this he is to furnish the various offerings, 45 ^^"", and 46 ^^^^. 



THE EXILE 321 

Strip across the country. Judah and Benjamin are to exchange 
places in order the better to obhterate the old lines of division. 
"Between these two important tribes will be the Temple. 

The expectation of Yahweh's interference for His people is 
carried so far as to include the physical transformation of the 
country. The new Temple will be located on an exceeding high 
mountain. Here Ezekiel sees it in vision, and so changed is the 
topography that he does not at first recognise the building.^ The 
great structure will form a unit of itself, isolated from the city of 
which it has been heretofore a part. Immediately about the 
sanctuary the priests will receive their allotments of ground, the 
more effectually to separate city and Temple. 

The elaborate measurements of the new sanctuary need not 
be reproduced here. The central building is to be on the plan 
of the old one which had been destroyed. Instead of the single 
court in which that one originally stood, this will have two, an 
outer and an inner. Entrance to the inner is prohibited to any 
but the priests and Levites, Even the prince is allowed to come 
only into the gateway to see his sacrifices offered. A wall ten feet 
high and ten feet thick surrounds the whole structure, and one 
of similar massiveness separates the outer from the inner court. 
Each is provided with gateways, and each gateway is arranged to 
accommodate a considerable guard. 

What is the reason for all this elaborate fortification and regu- 
lation ? The reason is given by the writer. In the old days 
Yahweh had been constantly offended by trespassers on His holi- 
ness. We have already had occasion to notice that this word 
was used to denote a physical, rather than a moral attribute of 
the divinity. To understand the attitude of Ezekiel and his 
contemporaries we need to remember that all things could be 
divided into the two classes, sacred and profane. One class (the 
sacred or holy, as we have the word rendered in our translations) 
was fit for the worship of Yahweh, either naturally or because it 
had been consecrated to Him. The other class was not fit to be 
brought before Him and was likely to arouse His wrath. The 
danger of offending Him was reason for the utmost caution in 

^The great vision — chapters 40-48 — begins with this statement. Other 
Old Testament passages which speak of the Mount of the House being lifted 
above the mountains (Is. 2^ and the parallel in Micah) are probably de- 
pendent on Ezekiel. 



322 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

approaching His presence. The danger was greatest when it was 
a question between Him and another god. Of old He was 
known to be a jealous God who could brook no rivals. What 
was dedicated to another deity was therefore especially abhorrent 
to Him. 

Now almost everything which is not dedicated to Yahweh is 
liable to fall under the power of another god. To the average 
man of ancient times the world was full of gods (demons, cobolds, 
jinn, are only gods of the second class). Even so late a writer 
as Augustine is able to show that every act and exigency of life 
was brought into relation with some god.^ What was true of 
the Roman world was even more true in the distant East a thou- 
sand years earlier. Ezekiel, like all who took the will of Yah- 
weh seriously, was weighed down by the thought of how easy it 
was to infringe the holiness of Yahweh. Prominent among the 
duties of the priests, therefore, is the instruction of the people 
concerning the distinction between things sacred and profane. 

Even moral offences — and we have seen that Ezekiel set up a 
high moral standard — were viewed in the same light as offences 
against the holiness of Yahweh. Violations of the will of Yahweh 
were all in the same category. Where we distinguish between 
moral and ceremonial requirements, Ezekiel made no difference. 
These requirements were partly recorded in the Book of In- 
struction ; but they were also in part a matter of priestly tra- 
dition. 

As an example of what is meant, we may cite the prophet's 
specification concerning the burial of the kings of Judah. The 
Temple of Solomon was in immediate connexion with the palace. 
In accordance with ancient custom the bodies of the kings of 
Judah were buried in the palace — in the part of the palace ad- 
joining the Temple. So we are told explicitly by Ezekiel him- 
self.^ After what was said above about the pollution of corpses, 
we understand fully the offence which was given by this custom. 
We may go further and say that even to a late day the manes 
were worshipped in Judah, and so the burial of the kings near 
the Temple brought alien divinities into the very presence of 
Yahweh. It is considerations such as these which induce Ezekiel 

1 De Civitate Dei, IV, 8-11. 

^ Ezek. 43 "^ ^ On tfie taboo communicated by dead bodies, cf. Frazer, The 
Golden Bough, I, p. 169 f. 



THE EXILE 323 

to remove the Temple from the city, or, better, to remove the 
city from the Temple, and to put between them the consecrated 
persons, the priests. 

New regulations are published for the priests themselves, based 
on the same reflection — possibly also to some extent on tradition. 
The priests are greatly limited in their mourning customs. It was 
impossible wholly to do away with expressions of grief which had 
become established in usage, even though they were animistic in 
origin, but what could be done, Ezekiel enjoined. In like manner 
he gave new regulations concerning the dress of the priests. More 
important, and indeed revolutionary, was the new stipulation con- 
cerning the persoimel of the Temple service. It had been the cus- 
tom of the kings of Judah — so we discover from the passage under 
consideration ^ — to make presents of slaves to the Temple. These 
were captives taken in war, we may suppose, uncircumcised in 
heart and uncircumcised in flesh as Ezekiel calls them: that is, 
being foreigners, they had no interest in the service to which 
they were bound, and they also lacked in their flesh the sign 
which should show their consecration to Yahweh. Their presence 
in the Temple must be an off'ence to Yahweh and such an abuse 
must be guarded against in the future. Hence the service of the 
Temple, even in its most menial -parts, must be in the hands of 
duly consecrated ministers. None but these were to enter the 
inner court. 

The priests, however, were historically of two classes. The 
services of the Temple had been carried on since the time of Solo- 
mon by the family of Zadok. They were regarded as belonging to 
the general class of Levites, by which name the ministers of all the 
Yahweh sanctuaries were known. The writer of Deuteronomy 
knew no difference between priests and Levites. In its command 
to abolish the High-places, this book does not mean to have the 
ministers of these sanctuaries deprived of their rights as priests of 
Yahweh. It specifically ordains that they shall become part of 
the ministry of the Temple.^ But it was hardly to be expected 
that the house of Zadok, already in possession, would surrender 

^ Ezek. 44^"'^. Ezekiel does not say in so many words that these foreigners 
were presented by the kings, but other passages state or imply it (Ezra 8 2°). 

^ Deut. 18^"®, where all members of the tribe of Levi are regarded as hav- 
ing the same rights and privileges. We had occasion to notice this matter 
in discussing the reform of Josiah. 



324 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

their prerogatives. Under pressure from Josiah the new-comers 
were enrolled in the Temple staff, but equality with the Zadokites 
could not be carried through. 

Ezekiel is fully aware of the history of the case. As himself a 
member of the family of Zadok, he has no desire to reduce the 
privileges of that family. He therefore sanctions the status quo 
by a specific enactment. And this he motives by a religious 
theory. The Levites (he thinks), though true priests of Yahweh, 
have been guilty of defection from His worship in that they served 
the High-places. Their reduction to the lower class of ministers 
is a punishment for this defection. In this way what had actually 
taken place is theoretically justified. And the gain of thus regu- 
lating the service of the sanctuary is great. The uncircumcised 
Temple slaves may now be abolished. The whole of the sacred 
service will come into the hands of consecrated persons. There 
will be no violation of the holiness of Yahweh, the work of the 
sanctuary will be better done, and the needy Levites will be pro- 
vided for. The tendency to give a special consecration to those 
who perform even menial offices in sacred places is noticeable in 
other religions as well as in Judaism. Attention should be 
called in this connexion to the fact that Ezekiel, familiar as he 
is with priestly ideals and priestly tradition, nowhere mentions 
Aaron as in any way the ancestor or founder of the priestly 
family. 

The millennium of Ezekiel' s dreams, therefore, was a church- 
state whose constitutive fact was the dwelling of Yahweh in the 
midst of His people. In order to attain this all these precautions 
were necessary — the priests to offer sacrifice, the Levites to guard 
the doors and care for the house, the prince to supply the offer- 
ings, the people to worship at a distance. The main business 
of this church was to keep itself unspotted from the world. This 
means no doubt to avoid sin, for transgression of the will of Yah- 
weh, whether in morals or in ritual, is violation of His holiness. 
But all is looked upon from the ritual rather than the ethical point 
of view. 

It would seem as if all these precautions; with the help of the 
people's renewed heart, would be enough. Not so thought the 
prophet. In a world where so much must be classed as profane 
the possibilities of defilement are constantly present. Special rites 
of purification must therefore be observed at stated times. One 



THE EXILE 325 

can hardly be too scrupulous, for an unwitting violation of the 
rules for holiness may bring down the wrath of Yahweh. With 
the best will in the world one may come into contact with that 
which is ritually defiling. Even the priest is not exempt from 
such contagion. The sanctuary itself or its vessels may be affected 
by it. To prevent so disastrous a state of things, a special class 
of offerings is now brought into prominence. These are the so- 
called sin offerings, which have special efficacy in removing cere- 
monial defilement. 

These offerings are found in early Semitic religion, where they 
are expiatory in the strict sense of the word. When the god is 
angry and blood alone will satisfy him, a victim is brought and 
slain at his altar. His anger being cooled, the old relations are 
resumed between him and his worshippers. In Israelitish relig- 
ion we may suppose such offerings not unknown, though they 
were always rare. The fact which had early impressed itself on 
the memory of the people was that the blood of a victim restores 
the lost communion with Yahweh. Exactly how it does this was 
not reflected upon. The calamities of Judah made it necessary that 
the people should reflect on the means to be taken to recover the 
favour of Yahweh. The means were at hand in the ancient sin 
offering, which Ezekiel therefore makes prominent. Every six 
months (he ordains) the consecration of the sanctuary is to be 
renewed by a special sin offering.^ In this way the continued 
presence of Yahweh will be assured. In the prominence which 
Ezekiel gives to this class of offerings he is again the forerunner 
of Judaism. 

To complete our discussion of Ezekiel's commonwealth we need 
to notice the river which he sees issuing from the sanctuary. 
This river, which was suggested to him by the fountain which 
flows at the base of the actual Temple hill, is to run down the 
great gorge of the Kedron and into the Dead Sea. So abundant 
will be its supply that it will transform this lifeless body of water 
into a fresh-water lake whose waters will swarm with fish and 
whose shores will cease to be desert. Ezekiel had no mystical 
or allegorical meaning hidden behind this vision. It was to him 
only a part of the programme for increasing fertility in the prom- 
ised land. The Dead Sea and the wilderness of Judah were to be 
made to do their part in sustaining the people. So distinctly 
1 Ezek. 45 17-20. 



326 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

prosaic and economic is he that he allows the salt marshes to re 
main in order that the people may be supplied with salt.^ 

From our point of view the limitations of Ezekiel are so obvi- 
ous that it is easy for us to underrate him. We see in him a 
man intense but narrow ; his ideals are formal, liturgical ; his 
dogmatism leads him to shut his eyes to the facts of experience. 
But with all this we can see not only that he was the man for the 
time, but that his power came from his sterling moral qualities. 
He was intensely in earnest ; he was saturated with the idea of his 
own and his people's responsibility; he was faithful to duty when 
all the world (his world) was against him. When the tide turned 
and his predictions were justified by the event, he showed noth- 
ing of pride or vainglory. If he was pessimistic when others 
were hopeful, he showed most hope when they were hopeless. 
No sooner did the calamity fall than he began the work of up- 
building. And this he did with a sincere love for souls, watch- 
ing for them as one that should give account. The system 
which he evolved was no doubt narrow and exclusive. But we 
see no way in which Judaism could have been carried through 
its crisis, no way in which it could have been preserved for its 
future mission, except by becoming for the time being narrow 
and exclusive. The framework provided by Ezekiel in his vis- 
ion became an ideal toward which his countrymen could work. 
And as they began to realise it, even in their exile, it gave them 
coherence and staying power. Ezekiel was the father of Juda- 
ism. The child was tempted, when it got its growth, to disown 
the relationship. But we are able to see to whom it owes its 
being. To say that he is the father of Judaism means that he is 
the father of legalism. The prophets in general may be said to 
have prepared the way for the great casuistic system, by which 
the Jews have lived so many centuries. They were constantly 
preaching obedience as the condition of life. But this preach- 
ing crystallised in Ezekiel. He (following in the footsteps of 
Deuteronomy) laid down a system of duties, rehgious as well as 

1 Ezek. 47 1-1'. How far Ezekiel expected his vision to be literally ful- 
filled is a point on which the interpreters are divided. All the indications 
seem to me to show that he supposed it would be literally fulfilled. As to 
the details of the interpretation the reader may consult the recent commen- 
taries, and especially Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II, where maps 
and plans are given. 



THE EXILE 327 

moral, by which the people might hope to live in the continued 
enjoyment of the divine favour. And as he raised legalism to a 
system, so he inaugurated the apocalyptic school of thought 
which has so powerfully influenced Judaism, Christianity, and 
Islam. His vision of the future was one that could never be 
realised, but it gave an outline of that good time coming which 
oppressed souls are always looking for, an outline which they 
were able to fill in, allegorise, or spirituahse, as met the need of 
their times. Taking him all in all it is not too much to say that 
Ezekiel is the most influential man that we find in the whole 
course of Hebrew history. 

Ezekiel's latest prophecy is dated in the year 571 b.c, and we 
may suppose that his death occurred not long after. He had 
taken pains to put some part of his life's work into written form, 
and he had founded a school whose influence extended and car- 
ried on what he had begun. Through all these years the Juda- 
ites seem to have had peace under the reign of Nebuchadrezzar. 
This monarch had devoted himself to the adornment of his capi- 
tal, planning and carrying out the great works which made 
Babylon a wonder of the world. His own inscriptions tell of 
the number and magnificence of the palaces and temples which 
he built, and of his rebuilding those city walls of which Greek 
writers have so much to say.^ More important for the prosperity 
of the country were the moats and canals which protected the 
fields from inundation, or carried the water to them when needed. 
On the death of Nebuchadrezzar his son Evil-merodach ^ came to 
the throne. He it was who released Jehoiachin from his long 
imprisonment, and gave him a place at court. We hear noth- 
ing of the effect which this release had on the Jews in Babylonia. 
It can scarcely be supposed that the Babylonian monarchs gave 
much thought to the little band of exiles. They, on their part, 
were probably content to escape observation. They were learn- 
ing to live among the Gentiles, as in the great world and yet not 
of it — a lesson that was to prove useful to them for a long time 

^ The inscriptions are contained in the Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, III, 2, 
pp. 10-71. A good estimate of Nebuchadrezzar's character as a man and 
ruler is given by McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monicments, III, pp. 

143-159- 

^ Amel-marduk is the Babylonian form of the name. The Biblical writer 
(2 Kings, 25 '•^^-^'') dates the restoration of Jehoiachin in the thirty-seventh year 
of his captivity. 



328 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

to come. The reign of Evil-merodach has nothing to claim our 
attention. He seems to have been a careless, ease-loving prince. 
After a reign of less than two years he was murdered by his 
brother-in-law, Neriglissar, who seized the throne. This king 
retained his ill-gotten power only three years, and his son, who 
succeeded him, was removed by a conspiracy soon after ascend- 
ing the throne. Nabonidus, on whom the conspirators conferred 
the crown, reigned about twenty years, but they were years of 
loss and disintegration, during which a new and formidable 
power not far away was threatening Babylon. 

The exiles in whom our interest is centred had, we may sup- 
pose, little appreciation of the civilisation by which they were 
surrounded. It was to them the expression of a religion foreign 
to their own, and in their eyes many of its customs must have 
been abominations. The defection of some of their number to 
this heathenism would make the remainder only more rigid in 
strengthening the institutions which still remained to them. They 
were deprived of many of the means of grace ; there was all the 
more reason for holding on to what was left. Sacrifice could not 
be offered in a strange land. Even if the Temple had been stand- 
ing, they could not have visited it. But some of the ordinances 
of Yahweh were still practicable. Two among these, because 
they were practicable, and because they served to emphasise the 
difference between Jews and Gentiles, received new importance. 
These were circumcision and the Sabbath. Observance of them 
now became a test of fidelity to Yahweh. 

Circumcision was a rite originally common to a large part of 
the inhabitants of Canaan, with the Egyptians and other African 
peoples. Its original significance is now lost to us, but there is 
no reason to doubt that this significance was religious. Wher- 
ever we can trace the origin of other mutilations of the body — 
tattooings, cuttings, extraction of teeth — we find them based on 
religious ideas. It is probable that with the Israelites circum- 
cision was a tribal mark, admitting boys or young men to full 
membership in the clan, and into communion with Yahweh. As 
we have seen ^ the Yahwist found a tradition that Moses provoked 
the wrath of Yahweh by neglecting it and that its performance 
upon his infant son was the means of reconciliation. This is in 
accordance with the early ritualistic view such as we see illus- 
^ Above, p. 66 f. 



THE EXILE 329 

trated by the Yahwist elsewhere. The Elohist has a variant tra- 
dition. According to him the rite was introduced by Joshua at 
Gilgal to remove the reproach of Egypt. ^ With him, as with 
the Yahwist, therefore, it is a part of the popular religion. In 
the eyes of the prophets the rite had no special value. It is not 
mentioned by Amos, Hosea, or Isaiah, while Jeremiah indicates 
his light esteem for it as a mere fleshly ordinance. At the same 
time this prophet exhorts the people to circumcise themselves to 
Yahweh, by putting away the foreskins of their hearts.^ The 
language will be natural if we suppose the rite to be a rite of con- 
secration. Similar expressions in Deutercaiomy ^ certainly do 
not favour the idea that the external rite had any value in the 
author's eyes. 

Ezekiel, indeed, made no direct regulation on the subject. 
But he introduced a different valuation of external rites. The 
whole system of clean and unclean was, in his eyes, of great im- 
portance. He takes occasion to express Yahweh's abhorrence of 
the uncircumcised foreigners who had been employed in His ser- 
vice. We may be sure, therefore, that his influence would be in 
favour of the retention of the rite — all the more that Israel was 
now living in the midst of the uncircumcised. In several pas- 
sages he expresses his contempt for the uncircumcised.* Where 
such reproach was uttered, men would take pains to avoid giving 
occasion for it. The Judaite who neglected the rite would soon 
find himself regarded with scorn by his fellows. This is the ten- 
dency that made itself felt in the exile, and which has wrought 
in Judaism to the present time. 

The other mark of distinction was the observance of the Sab- 
bath. This seems to have been originally a Babylonian institu- 
tion, naturalised in Canaan at an early day. Cessation of labour 
one day in seven cannot be the thought of a nomadic or pas- 
toral people. The life of the peasant is the one which gives op- 
portunity for such an observance. That certain days are taboo, 
because of the predominance of a hostile planet, is a thought that 
comes with the systematic observation of the heavens such as we 

* Josh. 5 '• ^' ^- ^. The intervening verses are a later insertion. 
' Jer. 4 *. In 9 "^'^ Jeremiah designates the circumcised in flesh as precisely 
the ones that are uncircumcised in heart. 

' Deut. 10 '", 30 ' ; the latter is certainly a late insertion. 

^2 19. 21 25, 



330 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

find in Babylonia. The Babylonians are said to have designated 
the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth day of 
each month as days of possible ill-omen, in which special care 
should be taken concerning what one does or undertakes. The 
phases of the moon would seem to give reason for a notion of 
this kind, especially where the moon was a prominent divinity, 
as it seems to have been all over the East. The Old Testament 
mention of New Moon and Sabbath in conjunction would indicate 
a common origin for the two festivals. With this idea we have 
another. The Book of the Covenant ordains that the land shall 
be cultivated six years, .and lie fallow the seventh. And it treaty 
the Sabbath in connexion with this Sabbatic year.^ Here we find 
the idea of the agriculturist that the land belongs to his god, and 
that cultivation is a trespass on the god's rights. It was on ac- 
count of this belief that so much care was taken to propitiate the 
local divinity when new ground was brought under cultivation. 
Leaving the ground fallow for a portion of the time is one way 
of recognising the god's ownership. 

We are here in the region of hypothesis. But as we know that 
the attributes of Baal were transferred to Yahweh, and that Yah- 
weh was the recognised owner of the land of Canaan, it does not 
seem far-fetched to suppose that at least the Sabbatic year was an 
acknowledgment of His rights in the soil, and that the Sabbath, 
whatever its original connexion with the moon-god, was regarded 
from the same point of view. In the earlier prophets we find no 
emphasis laid upon the sacred day. Amos describes the extor- 
tionate merchants as observing it, but with the wish that it might 
pass quickly that they might resume their money-getting. Hosea 
mentions it as one of the joyous festivals which are to come to 
an end. Isaiah puts it with the New Moon and the days of as- 
sembly, but finds them all an abomination to Yahweh.^ 

Ezekiel takes a different tone — here again the inaugurator of 
a new mode of thought. Through him Yahweh says : '* I gave 
them my statutes and taught them my judgments in which a 
man shall live if he do them ; and also my Sabbaths I gave them 
to be a sign between myself and them, that they might know that 
I, Yahweh, am the one who consecrates them." ' The meaning 

1 Ex. 23 10-^2, 

2 Isaiah, i", Amos 8*, Hos. 2". 

' Ezek. 20 ^^^ and several times in the same chapter; cf. also 22^' '^, 23^^ 



THE EXILE 331 

seems to be that Yahweh has separated Israel from the nations, 
and consecrated them to Himself by putting this mark upon them. 
The profanation of the Sabbath is sacrilege — like the profanation 
of other sacred things. A people in earnest in carrying out the 
idea of consecration would find strong motives impelling them to 
the observance of the sacred day. We are not surprised that 
passages originating in or after the exile lay great stress upon the 
day. One of the editors of Jeremiah intimates that the calamities 
of the house of David might have been avoided had the princes 
been careful in the matter of the Sabbath.^ Other passages 
originating in or after the exile exhort to strict observance of the 
day, and the climax is reached in the time of Nehemiah or later, 
when desecration was punished by the civil authorities.^ 

Whatever we may think of the ideals cherished by Ezekiel, 
there can be no doubt that he gave direction to the thoughts of 
his people. The little band of exiles Avent to school to him, and 
he left behind pupils who could carry on his work. Like their 
master, these men drew a sharp line through the habits and 
customs of daily life. On one side, whatever by priestly or pro- 
phetic tradition was connected with the worship of Yahweh was 
adopted and cherished. On the other side, whatever was not 
thus approved was unsparingly condemned. The more thought- 
ful of the exiles could not help following their master in extend- 
ing the line of demarcation into the past. What was now hateful 
to Yahweh must always have been hateful to Him. And in ap- 
plying this standard it must be evident that only one verdict 
could be pronounced. The fathers came short in almost every 
particular. 

But it might be edifying, nevertheless, to consider these short- 
comings of earlier generations. So a new impulse was given to 
literature. The records that had been preserved were examined 

^ Jer. 17^^-2^. The paragraph seems not to come from Jeremiah himself. 
It is contrary to his whole preaching. The most striking passage on the ob- 
servance of the Sabbath is Isaiah, 56^-'^, post-exilic, as we shall see. From 
the early historical books we learn only that New Moons and Sabbaths were 
days for visiting the prophets, and that the Temple guard was changed on 
that day (2 Kings, 4^3, n 5-9). 

^ Neh. 13 13-22 On the Babylonian origin of the Sabbath, see Jastrow's 
article in the American Journal of Theology, II, pp. 312 ff. (April, 1898), 
and the article " Sabbath " by Driver in Hastings's, Dictionary of the Bible, 
IV; Toy in the Journal of Bib. Lit., XVIII, p. 190 ff. 



332 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

afresh, worked over, and put in a new light. The literature that 
arose was literature with a purpose. Earlier generations might 
have delighted in the stories of patriarchs and judges because 
they were stories of adventure or of prowess. The time was now 
too serious for that. What could point a moral was valued just 
because it could be used to point a moral. The idea of literary- 
property had not yet arisen. The material which any one found 
at hand he took and copied, condensed, or enlarged as suited his 
purpose. Fortunately for us, writers of the new school were 
willing to preserve their sources (so far as they preserved them at 
all) in their original words. The result is that we are able, in 
many cases, to distinguish the earlier from the later material. 

We may suppose that the book of Deuteronomy was the first 
to engage the attention of these students. This book had be- 
come the standard of the prophetical party. Ezekiel himself had 
it in mind when he spoke of the statutes, judgments, and com- 
mandments given by Yahweh, by observing which a man shall 
live. The book had already received additions and enlarge- 
ments since its first promulgation. But a code of this kind is never 
complete, as is shown by the whole later history of Judaism. 
The light of events had brought its teachings into fearful dis- 
tinctness. It was only a kindness to succeeding generations 
to put this light into the book itself. So we see the threats made 
more specific by passages which could be written only in the 
exile. As a code of laws the book could still be amended from 
tradition; moreover, its place in history could be made more dis- 
tinct by a historical introduction.^ The material for this intro- 
duction was taken from the earlier history of the exodus known 
as J E. 

The main parts of the book of Joshua were rewritten about 
this time from the Deuteronomic point of view. That is : the 
conquest of the land was viewed as complete and thorough in- 
stead of gradual and partial. We see the view of the earlier 
prophets here brought out — that Israel was faithful to Yahweh in 
the earlier time. This fidelity must have been shown, so the 
writer supposes, in exterminating the Canaanites in accordance 
with the commands of the Book of Instruction. Joshua there- 
fore appears as the model of obedience to these commands, and 

^ Notice Deut. 29, 30^"^*, the unhistorical picture in 2^^^^-, and the allus- 
ions to the exile in 4. 



THE EXILE 333 

the narrative gives us exactly what did not occur at the Con- 
quest. Tl-ie book of Judges was already substantially in its pres- 
ent form, but an editor found it necessary to point its moral by 
making it show how Canaanitish influence had regularly corrupted 
Israel and as regularly led to disaster. It seems probable also 
that the farewell address of Samuel was composed at this time, 
and possibly the account of Saul's disobedience in not extermi- 
nating the Amalekites was now expanded from an earlier 
nucleus.^ The books of Kings w^e know to be an excerpt 
from a more extended historical work, made from the Deu- 
teronomic point of view. In the author's eyes the kings of 
Israel and Judah are pronounced bad or good according as they 
conform to the Deuteronomic standard. Tried by this standard 
Josiah is the only one (after David) who is fully approved. The 
people at large are uniformly condemned for the worship at the 
High-places. That the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of 
the Temple is the composition of an author of this school need 
hardly be pointed out.^ 

It was to be expected that other codes would be formulated be- 
sides the Book of Deuteronomy. That book was hortatory ni 
tone and its legislation did not embody all that it was desirable 
to have on papyrus or parchment. Ezekiel's great idea was the 
consecration of the people to Yahweh and this might be more 
distinctly put in a convenient hand-book. Someone who thought 
thus wrote down a collection of laws now included within the 
Book of Leviticus and called the Holiness Code.^ Possibly the 
author did not agree with all of Ezekiel's regulations. He quite 
certainly desired to have some priestly traditions formulated 
apart from the visionary second temple. 

• The priest must teach the people to distinguish between sacred 
and profane. He must himself know what is sacred and what is 
profane. The Holiness Code teaches him just this. That it 

^ I Sam. 15. The farewell address is chapter 12. 

2 In making these authors exilic I do not mean to date them exactly in 
the thirty years between Ezekiel's death and the advent of Cyrus. The 
lower limit of the exile is not a fixed date, as will be shown. 

^ Lev. II and 17-26. The critical questions are discussed by Baentsch, 
Das Heiligkeitsgesetz (1893), Paton in the Journal of Biblical Literature 
(1895, 1897, and following years), and the usual hand-books. The analysis 
is indicated in Driver's text and translation of Leviticus {Sacred Books of the 
Old Testament^. 



334 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

enumerates a large number of offences against the moral law as con- 
trary to the ^' holiness " of Yahweh and the people, only brings 
the author into accord with his predecessors. His point of view 
is sufficiently indicated by his frequent repetition of the phrase 
*'l am Yahweh/' or ''You shall be holy for I am holy." We 
have already seen how fundamental in Ezek^'el's thought was this 
distinction between sacred and profane. Its first application by 
the author of the Holiness Code is to the subject of foods that 
might be eaten. ^ Among animals the great majority were more 
or less distinctly associated with some god. The swine is an ex- 
ample. This does not mean that particular swine were set apart 
to the god by an act of consecration, but that the whole race was 
the property of that particular god — -Adonis seems to have been his 
name. In the earliest stages of thought the animal was the god. 
The later uncleanness is a survival of the totemistic ascription of 
divinity to the animal. But an animal that was possessed by a 
demon could not be brought to Yahweh, or be consistently eaten 
by his worshippers.^ 

Consecration of this kind is contagious. Not only is a swine 
taboo (this is the most convenient word), every one that touches 
him becomes taboo. To come into the presence of Yahweh in 
this condition is as offensive as it would be to bring an idol be- 
fore Him. It is probably not an accident that the animals men- 
tioned first in the list of those forbidden are animals that play a 
prominent part in other religions. The camel was sacred among 
the Arabs. The hare is sacred in almost all early religions and 
has not altogether lost his supernatural character even among us.^ 
The coney or rock-badger belongs in the same class with the hare 
— the ancient observer, at least, would put them together. 

It is not possible for us to go through the list and show that 
all the animals forbidden to the Jews had this quality of sacred - 
ness to some god. But when we remember how many animals 

^ Lev. II. The similar catalogue in Deuteronomy is probably a later in- 
sertion. 

2 Examples of the uncleanness of swine in other religions are given by 
Usener, Sintjiuthsagen, p. 93; Wiedemann, Religion of the Egyptians, p. 80 
(where the swine is an incarnation of Set and therefore an abomination to 
Horus) ; Frazer, The Golden Bough, II, p. 44 (Second Edition II, p. 300"-). 

^ The negro folk-tales in which the rabbit plays so prominent a part show 
how superhuman is his estimation, and the rabbit's foot that is carried for 
luck is another evidence. Arabic parallels are well known. 



THE EXILE 335 

were worshipped by so advanced a people as the Egyptians (for 
example) we shall find it altogether probable that all that were 
taboo were taboo for the same reason. 

But holiness (in the sense in which we are now discussing it) 
works both ways. A man may carry the contagion of unclean- 
ness into the presence of Yahweh to his own hurt ; he may also 
carry the contagion of Yahweh's sacred things into common life 
which also would be to his hurt. The highest degree of sacred- 
ness is dangerous to anyone — even the high priest must exercise 
special precautions in approaching what possesses it. Some 
things must not be eaten even by persons consecrated to the 
divine service — they are reserved for Yahweh alone. Among 
these is the blood of animals. This ga7iz besonderer Saft has 
always affected men with awe or horror. It is so intimately con- 
nected with the life that primitive thought identifies them. '^ The 
blood is the life " is the Hebrew assertion. But the life so evi- 
dently comes from God that to eat it would be to trespass on 
that which belongs to Him alone. Hence the prohibition to eat 
blood in any circumstances.^ And with the blood we may class 
the fat of the sacrifices. This is Yahweh's portion, to eat it is to 
trespass on His rights and to bring down His wrath. Of some 
sacrifices the whole flesh was taboo, even to the priests. All 
this is set before us in the Holiness Code, though not so much 
in detail as was later found desirable. 

To our conception, regulations concerning food do not belong 
in a divinely given law. We read with more sympathy the next 
chapter, for we also regard with abhorrence the sins which are 
there forbidden. The section deals with the subject of marriage 
and specifies the degrees within which marriage is prohibited, 
forbidding also adultery and unnatural vice."-^ While we find 

* I am not saying that there may not have been even cruder ideas at the basis 
of the original prohibition. It may have been thought that it would be dan- 
gerous to swallow the life of an animal. But the Hebrew idea was strictly 
religious. The prohibition of blood was not a mere theoretical enactment. 
Blood was eaten at certain sacramental seasons by the Gentiles, and the 
Jews may have been tempted to follow such examples. The use of blood 
upon the tent or upon the door-posts of the house (as at thepassover) shows 
the magical power that was attributed to it, as does the care taken to 
cover it with earth when an animal was slain at a distance from the sanctuary. 

'Lev. iS^^*'. Paton shows that there are four pentades or two deca- 
logues, with a concluding exhortation. The original conclusion was 19 *^ 



33^ OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ourselves at one with the author in forbidding what he forbids, 
our point of view is different. To us these are matters of social 
order. The tfiings prohibited are contrary to God's will, no 
doubt, and abhorrent to Him. But to the writer they stand in 
the same class with the eating of meats prohibited. All are ab- 
horrent to Yahweh because violations of His sanctity. 

To understand exactly what this means, we need to go a little 
further back. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Ca- 
naanite Baal was the god of fruitfulness. He was therefore wor- 
shipped with licentious rites. So far as Yahweh was identified 
with Baal, these rites had invaded His worship. The tradition of 
the golden calf shows us the lascivious nature of this festival. 
Amos implies that prostitution went on at the altars of Yahweh. 
Hosea asserts that the young women of Israel gave themselves 
over to strangers at the sanctuaries.^ From the time of Asa 
down repeated attempts were made to clear the Temple of ob- 
scene ministers to unnatural lust, whose presence and whose re- 
turn when banished show how deeply the worst forms of sexual 
vice were imbedded in the popular religion. Ezekiel testifies in 
unmistakable language to the customs of Jerusalem down to the 
very siege of the city : ^' In thee they have committed lewdness ; 
in thee they have uncovered their father's nakedness; in thee 
they have humbled her that was unclean in her separation ; and 
a man has committed abomination with his neighbour's wife, 
and another has defiled his daughter-in-law, and another has 
humbled his sister, his father's daughter." ^ The language indi- 
cates more than occasional crimes, it indicates something habitual 
or periodic. The only reasonable hypothesis seems to be that at 
the great religious festivals held in the name of Yahweh or of 
some other god, there was great sexual license. The Queen of 
Heaven to whom Jeremiah alludes was probably worshipped by 
such excesses.' 

1 Hos. 4^^; cf. Amos, 2^ Ex. 32 ^' ^^ 

* Ezek. 22^^^; cf. 18 ^- ^^ The whole subject of the influence of the sex- 
ual life upon early Semitic religion has been developed by Barton in his 
Study of Semitic Origiiis (1901). 

^ Marriage within the prohibited degrees is alluded to in the case of a 
man's marrying his half-sister on his father's side, and tradition ascribes 
such a marriage to Abraham. The tradition may be the indication of an 
early system of matriarchy in which kinship was reckoned only on the 
mother's side. But even then the survival into a later time was immoral, 



THE EXILE 337 

The idea of holiness (or sacredness) comes in here with great 
distinctness. The phenomena of the sexual life are so marked 
that men have always attributed them to supernatural powers. 
Woman was taboo at certain periods. Warriors when in actual 
service were forbidden to touch a woman ; ^ their consecration 
to the god of war would be broken by touching a person sacred 
in another sense — sacred to one was unclean to another. The 
new sense of consecration to Yahweh which was aroused in the 
exile led to stricter regulation of all that pertained to the sexual 
life, especially as the religion of Babylonia sanctioned some of 
the abuses which had formerly taken refuge under the traditional 
customs of Israel. From this point of view we understand more 
clearly the emphasis which the Holiness Code lays upon these en- 
actments. They represent a protest against a heathenism which 
had offended Yahweh in the past, and must not be allowed to 
rouse His anger in the future. The higher moral standard was 
made effective by union with ritual ideas. The term sacred ox 
holy had not had ethical content ; now it begins to have it. 

It would be a mistake to suppose that the collection of these 
laws and their commitment to writing was undertaken in the in- 
terests of the priests alone. The sacredness of the people does 
indeed culminate in the priesthood. The author agrees with 
Ezekiel in taking special care that the priests should keep them- 
selves ritually pure.^ But the object of one as well as the other 
is to inform the people of what must be done by the priests as 
well as by themselves for the continuance of Yahweh' s favour 
upon them. For this purpose the people must be informed what 
sort of sacrifices are acceptable, what restrictions are to be ob- 

and Ezekiel in struggling toward a higher moral standard is right in con- 
demning it. 

^ I Sam. 21 *-* from an early document. On the whole subject see Schwally, 
Semitische Kriegsaltertumer, I (1901) p. 60 ff. Schwally points out that the 
curious regulations for warriors in Deut. 20 ^"^ are based on the sexual 
taboo {J.c. pp. 75-98). See also Frazer, The Golden Bough,^ I., p. 170; II, 
p. 232 flF. On the sacred character of women, see Procksch, Die Blutrache 
bei den vorislamischen Arabern (1899), p. 48. 

'Lev. 21 and 22. The regulations go beyond Ezekiel in excluding from 
the service of the altar any one of the priestly family who has a physical 
blemish. From analogy we may suppose that these unfortunates were sup- 
posed either to have come into the power of another god (or demon), or 
else that Yahweh's displeasure with them was manifested in their misfor- 
tune, in which case they would not be acceptable to Him. 



33B OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

served by the priests, who are to eat of the sacred things. That 
the author had some idea of enforcing the prerogatives of the 
priests is possible, though this aim nowhere comes to the front. 
He is genuinely interested in informing the people how Yahweh 
will have them live. His purpose comes out in the concluding 
exhortation of his tract, in which, after the manner of Deuter- 
onomy, he lays upon the people the injunction to obey these 
commands. Here we find the promise of prosperity in case of 
obedience, while for disobedience there is the threat of sword 
and pestilence. And the climax is reached in the declaration : 
" And yourselves I will scatter among the nations . . . and 
your land shall be a desolation and your cities shall be a waste. 
Then shall the land be paid its Sabbaths, all the days that it 
lies desolate while you are in your enemies' land; then shall the 
land rest and pay off its Sabbaths." ' The exilic point of view 
is distinctly visible, and the chastened temper of the people no 
doubt received this message with humility. 

It would be useless, however, to deliver such a message unless 
there lay behind it a hope for the future. Such a hope was the 
basis of Ezekiel's preaching and it furnished the motive for all 
the literature of the period. The only reason for pointing out 
the errors of the past was to avoid their repetition in the future. 
But this itself implied that there was to be a future. In the exile, 
therefore, we must locate the beginnings of what we may call the 
Messianic hope. Ezekiel had gone counter to the popular desire 
when he so nearly ignored the king as head of his new common- 
wealth. The people of Judah had been under the rule of the 
house of David for more than four hundred years. The feeling 
of loyalty was strong in many hearts among the exiles. The mis- 
fortunes of recent times had moved people and monarch to sympa- 
thy with each other. The more the humiliations and privations 
of the present were felt, the more did the traditional glories of the 
founder of the dynasty come into view. There can be no doubt 
that David was a man of great personal charm, while his faults 
were not such as to diminish the affection of his people. Time 
had served only to deepen the impression made by him. Tra- 
dition magnified his exploits till he seemed in power and mag- 
nificence to be on a level with the great conquerors of Assyrian 
and Babylonian history. It was natural that the people in their 
^ Lev. 26 ^^ ^ (Driver's translation.) 



THE EXILE 339 

forlorn condition should long for a new David to restore the state 
to its rightful position among the nations, and to take vengeance 
upon the Gentiles by whom they had been so long oppressed. 

This hope was nourished by the study of the older books of 
prophecy. These books were indeed not intended as programmes 
for the future. The great preachers whose words they embodied 
had been intent on reproof, rebuke, and exhortation of their 
contemporaries. They had frequently threatened calamity for 
the future, but this was in order to make an impression on the 
present. They were pointing out what every preacher must 
point out, — that sin is contrary to the mind of God, and that one 
cannot transgress the commands of a just God with impunity. 

But these threats had received startling confirmation from 
events. The wrath of God had fallen in such ways as to em- 
phasise the predictive element in these books. So startling a 
confirmation gave the books an enormous importance, and they 
were anxiously studied, not only that the people might draw the 
lesson of the divine justice, but also that they might, if possible, 
discover something of the divine compassion and of the divine 
purpose for the future. The promises made by the earlier proph- 
ets, were, indeed, few and far between. Amos seems to have had 
no hope for the future. Hosea's anticipations would have been 
equally dark had it not been for his confidence that Yahweh's 
love was inextinguishable. Even he left the hope to be in- 
ferred rather than give it distinct expression. Isaiah saw 
that a remnant might turn, and when the crisis came felt that it 
would be impossible for Zion to be utterly destroyed. Jeremiah 
again saw only the dark side. In spite of the almost total ab- 
sence of definite i)romise for the future, however, there always 
was in the prophets the conviction that Yahweh is faithful and 
merciful. Whenever Israel should turn to Him with all its 
heart, it would surely be forgiven and restored. The exiles 
of Ezekiel's congregation were sure that they had definitely 
broken with the past, and this assurance gave them a larger and 
more lively hope for the future. We cannot help seeing that in 
this condition of things the hopeful hints in the prophets would 
be made more definite. Some confident scribe at this time added 
the supplement to Amos which opens a vista of peace and pros- 
perity for the time to come. The discourses of Isaiah were much 
more thoroughly worked over, though how much of the inserted 



340 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

material belongs in this period, and how much to a still later time, 
is difficult to discover. In the book of Jeremiah, as we now read 
it, we find a number of similar passages which contrast strangely 
with the uniformly pessimistic view of that prophet. Ezekiel 
himself did not escape, though the insertions do not form any 
large part of the work. 

It cannot surprise us to find that this hope expressed itself in 
various forms. Sometimes we have it asserting itself in connex- 
ion with the name of David. Perhaps the chapter which makes 
David receive a direct promise of a succession of descendants who 
should possess his throne for all time to come, belongs in this 
period.^ We can imagine that the restoration of Jehoiachin to 
liberty, possibly to a shadowy title of king or prince, might sug- 
gest the chastisement which the author speaks of. At the same 
time there were those who followed Ezekiel in distrusting the 
kingdom altogether, and who hoped for a kingdom of God in 
which there would be no earthly king. What we need to note 
is that in these and in other forms, the Messianic hope began to 
be a part of Israel's mental and spiritual support from the exile 
on. 

The exiles' love for the old home and their grief at its desola- 
tion is affectingly brought to view in the little book which we call 
by the name Lamentations. Tradition, which tries to associate 
every literary monument with some well-known name, has attrib- 
uted its composition to Jeremiah. It cannot be by him, nor in- 
deed is it all by one hand.^ ^' Poems by Two Friends " would 
not surprise us as the title of a book in our own day ; and some- 
thing like it would describe the book before us. The authors 
treat the same theme — the fall of Jerusalem — from essentially the 
same point of view. They are ardent patriots expressing their 
grief at the calamity of their people. Jerusalem is described in 
the language of the prophets as a woman bereaved of her chil- 
dren and delivered into the hands of her enemies. The details 
of the picture are dwelt upon with the insistence of grief. In 
vivid personification the mourning mother herself speaks — ap- 
pealing to the passers-by to know whether there has ever been 
such sorrow as hers. She confesses the sin and rebellion which 

^ 2 Sam. 7. 

* Compare the careful discussion in Driver's Literature of the Old Testa- 
tnent, or the recent commentaries of Budde and Lohr. 



THE EXILE 341 

have brought this punishment upon her. Nevertheless, the 
strangeness of the catastrophe baffles the mourning poet : 

" The Lord has become like an enemy ; He has destroyed Israel. 
He has destroyed all her palaces ; has ruined her fortresses. 
He has multiplied in the daughter of Zion mourning and woe. 
Like a robber he has violated His own dwelling ; destroyed His as- 
sembly hall ; 
He has made forgotten in Zion feast-day and Sabbath ; 
In hot anger He has spurned both king and priest." ^ 

We see how the author wrestles with the thought that Yahweh 
is the one responsible for the profanation of His own sanctuary. 
But we see also that he will not let go either his faith in Yahweh 
or his love for Israel. He may be called a type of Judah in ex- 
ile. He shows the heart disciplined by suffering. This is made 
evident by the element of confession so prominent in these poems. 
Zion is exhorted to pray to her Lord. Not only this ; but the 
author himself lifts up his heart in confession and supplication. 
He cannot believe that Yahweh will be blind to the present suf- 
fering of His people. It cannot be that He afflicts because He 
delights in suffering, for He is long-suffering and gracious. It is 
characteristic of post-exilic Judaism that the man who prays and 
confesses his sin is conscious of speaking as the mouthpiece of his 
people. The first steps are already taken toward the ecclesiastical 
.solidarity which finds its fullest expression in the Book of Psalms. 

Whatever hopes the people had were stimulated by events in the 
political world. Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, offended 
the religious susceptibilities of his subjects, especially of the 
priests, by endeavouring to centralise the worship of the provin- 
cial gods in the capital. Beyond this we know little about him. 
The restiveness of the Babylonians made it certain that they 
would welcome an invader who was strong enough to displace 
their king. Such a figure was rising to prominence in the east. 
Cyrus, King of Anshan, a small country beyond Elam, was con- 
quering one after another of his neighbours. The most important 
of these was Astyages, of Media, whose domain fell to Cyrus in 
549 B.C. The consolidated kingdom now appears under the title 
of the Medes and Persians. Its arms were next turned against 
Croesus, of Lydia, Avhose fall made such a deep impression on 
the Greek states. Whether Lydia was in alliance with Babylon as 

* Lam. 2 ^^. A slight correction of the traditional text is needed in v. ®. 



342 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

has been affirmed is not clearly made out. It was only in the 
nature of things that Cyrus should next attack the most powerful 
and wealthy country within his view. He was invited, more- 
over, by the discontented party in Babylon itself. Nabonidus 
remained in the city while his son Belshazzar commanded the 
army in the field. After this army was defeated by Cyrus the 
city might have defended itself a long time if its people had been 
united. But the party disaffected to Nabonidus opened the gates 
and Cyrus took possession without meeting serious opposition. 

The innovations of Nabonidus had been undertaken from re- 
ligious motives, as he himself claims. He rebuilt a number of 
temples that had fallen to decay and he put on record his prayers 
for the favour of the gods he so faithfully served. To the He- 
brew onlookers his fall must have been proof of the inabihty of 
his gods to save. Cyrus, who in a few years had made himself 
master of a great empire extending from the border of India to the 
shores of the ^gean, seemed much more distinctly the favourite 
of the true God. But Cyrus himself had no prejudice against the 
Babylonian gods and was conscious of no mission against them. 
The only inscription which we have from him declares that 
Merodach, the chief god of Babylon, commanded him to in- 
vade the country, and that the god marched at his side as his 
friend and helper. This god gave the city into his hand 
without battle or skirmish, so that he was welcomed by the 
inhabitants. Cyrus further declares that he took care to re- 
store to their ancient dwellings the gods whom Nabonidus 
had removed and he prays that Bel and Nebo may be gra- 
cious to him and intercede for him with Merodach.^ In fact, 
so important a city as Babylon must influence the pohcy of 
the new king. In a certain sense it continued to be the capi- 
tal tof the empire. Its gods must be recognised as a matter of 
state policy. Only in this way could the new reign be made 
legitimate in the eyes of the Babylonians. Whatever religion 
Cyrus may have adopted as a matter of personal conviction, it is 
clear that he cherished no aversion to the polytheism of Babylon. 
If the little company of exiles had any hopes of finding a conscious 
agent of Yahweh in the new conqueror these hopes were doomed 
to disappointment. 

* The inscriptions of Nabonidus and Cyrus are given in the Keihnschrift- 
liche Bibhothek, III, 2, pp. 80-137. 



THE EXILE 343 

That their hopes of release and return had been raised is made 
evident by two short pieces now joined into one and incorporated 
in the book of Isaiah.^ The theme of the first is the attack upon 
Babylon by an army of fierce and cruel warriors. At the close 
of the poem we learn that they are the Medes, and the work they 
are to accomplish is an overthrow " like God's overthrow of 
Sodom and Gomorrha." In the second poem we have a brill- 
iant sarcastic dirge over the King of Babylon whose destruction 
is expected in the near future. The quiet which the earth en- 
joys, now that its tyrant is slain, is shared even by the cedars of 
Lebanon ; they are no more ruthlessly felled to provide timber for 
Nabonidus's building. To greet the shade of the slaughtered king 
the personified Sheol rouses up departed monarchs from the 
thrones where they sit in state. These see with astonishment one 
so exalted brought down to a level with them. The thought of 
the Babylonian monarch had been that he would be deified — that 
he would ascend the oriental Olympus and set his throne there 
among the great gods. Instead, he is treated worse than the 
meanest of his subjects : " Thou art cast out from thy sepulchre 
like an abhorred abortion, like those who are pierced with the 
sword; thou goest down to the lowest pit like the corpse that is 
trodden under foot." ^ The close is made by Yahweh's threat 
to destroy Babylon, root and branch. 

Of about the same age is another fragment also preserved to us 
in the book of Isaiah.^ The author is deeply moved as he sees 
the approaching conflict. As the watcher in the desert sees the 
sand-storm approach so this watcher sees the band of robbers and 
hears the cry : " On, Elam ! Attack, Media ! " He looks again 
and a caravan approaches with the cry: " Babylon is fallen, and 
all the images of her gods lie broken on the ground." 

These anticipations were not realised, but the hope continued 
and grew stronger with the years. 

1 Isaiah, 131-14'-'^ The verses 14^-3 are the link, inserted later. 
' Isaiah, 14^^. Free emendation of the text is necessary, but the author's 
meaning is plain. 

3 Isaiah, 21 ^-^^. The obscure verses ^^-^^ may belong in the same period. 



CHAPTER XVI 

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 

The occupation of Babylon by Cyrus came late in the year 
539 B.c.^ It would be reasonable to expect a clear account of 
the history of the Jews from this time on, for we should suppose 
the literary tendency powerful enough to put on record what 
actually occurred. But the expectation is grievously disappointed. 
No period of the people's history is more obscure than that which 
comes between the advent of Cyrus in Babylon and the mission 
of Nehemiah to Jerusalem, unless it be the period which im- 
mediately follows the work of Nehemiah. 

According to the account given in the Biblical book of Ezra, 
and until recently commonly accepted, Cyrus had no sooner es- 
tablished himself in Babylon than he issued a distinct decree 
that the Jews in Babylonia should be permitted to return to their 
own city. The decree gives the rebuilding of the Temple as the 
special purpose of the return ; and the king has no hesitation in 
avowing his motive, namely, that Yahweh, God of Israel, has 
given to him all the kingdoms of the earth and has commanded 
him to build Him a house in Jerusalem. The decree is dated by 
the Biblical author in the first year of Cyrus, by which he means 
the first full year of the possession of Babylon, in our calendar 
538 B.C. 

The difficulties in accepting this account as it stands, are of the 
most serious character. The proclamation which Cyrus is said to 
have issued declares that Yahweh^ has given into the king's hands 
all the kingdoms of the earth. We have already seen that Cyrus 
claims Merodach, Bel, and Nebo as his patrons, and the incon- 

1 On the date see an article by E. Meyer in the Zcitschr. f. d. Alttest. Wis- 
senschaft {i?><^2>), p. 339 ff. ; and the same author's Forschungen zur alien 
Geschichte, II, p. 468 ff. 

2 Yahweh, God of Israel, we should probably read with the Greek Esdras. 
See Guthe's text in Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old Testament {i()Oi). The 
passage is Ezra i ^-*. 

344 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 345 

sistency of this with the alleged proclamation is obvious. The 
inconsistency might not be so striking in the eyes of an oriental 
— this we may cheerfully admit. But there is a vast difference 
between claiming that the patron deities of Babylon have given 
their own city into the king's hands and avowing that Yahweh, 
to him the God of one of the most obscure corners of his king- 
dom, has put into his power all the kingdoms of the earth. All 
that we know of the Persian readiness to acknowledge and protect 
all sorts of sanctuaries ^ does not justify the sweeping language of 
the proclamation. 

It is quite in accord with this that the alleged proclamation is 
in a style unknown to the genuine edicts of the Persian kings. 
These monarchs call themselves *' King of Armies," '' King of 
Babylon," " Great King," but nowhere " King of Persia." This 
title was given to them only after the Greek conquest of the 
East made men contrast Alexander with his predecessors who 
were primarily kings of Persia. 

These indications are sufficient to make us view the historicity 
of the account with suspicion, and we are compelled to look more 
closely at the whole narrative of which it is a part. The books 
of Ezra and Nehemiah (originally one book) are a continuation 
of the books of Chronicles and are by the same author. This 
author wrote certainly not earlier than 300 B.C. — probably con- 
siderably after that date. His distance in time from the reign of 
Cyrus is sufficient to prevent his having an accurate idea of what 
took place, unless he Avere careful and critical in the use of his 
Sources of information. That he was not critical is made clear 
by his earlier work, where he excerpts from documents still in 
our possession. His method there shows us that he was under a 
strong theological or ecclesiastical bias which made it impossible 
for him to see the actual process of history. This same bias af- 
fects his view of what took place after the exile. He finds in 
Jeremiah a prediction that the exile is to last seventy years. He 
has no hesitation in asserting that the prediction was literally ful- 
filled by a direct act of God upon the heart of the Great King. 
Hence his free construction of the proclamation which (accord- 
ing to his logic) Cyrus must have issued on the occasion. 

^ See, for example, the inscription containing an order of Darius I to an 
official named Gadata, protecting the rights of a sanctuary in Asia Minor, 
given by Meyer, Entstehung des Judentums , p. 19 f. 



346 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

It is not fof m to sit in JudgtriSnt oh the Chronicler. What 
W€ nged to know is how far his picture of the Persian period is 
feliable. It is now generally admitted that his testimony alone 
is of very slight historical value. Where he used other docu- 
ments, these must be judged on their merits. One of these docu- 
ments (the memoirs of Nehemiah) will occupy our attention in 
the next chapter. For the period before Nehemiah we have 
what seems on the surface a consistent story of the Jewish resto- 
ration. Wq hear how a large number of the exiles responded to 
the invitation of Cyrus> An elaborate list is given of those who 
made up the caravan; No sooner were they settled In their 
cities than they began the work of rebuilding the Temple. First 
the altar was restored and the service was resumed. Then tim- 
ber was secured from the Phoenicians, and in the second year the 
foundations were laid. At this point the enemies of Judah and 
Benjamin came and asked that they might help in the work. On 
being asked to give account of their claims, they alleged that 
they were descendants of the colonists which Esarhaddon had 
Settled in Samaria. They were not allowed to join in the work, 
and therefore turned against the newcomers and troubled them. 
Thus the work was hindered all the days of Cyrus. The form of 
the hindrance is indicated by the copy of a letter sent by certain 
foreigners in Palestine to the Great King. 

According to the narrative, the work was resumed in the reign 
Of Darius, and brought to a happy conclusion. A second en- 
deavour to induce the king to stop it met with no success. In 
fact (or rather in theory), it produced a new decree in favour of 
the work. The restored Temple was dedicated and the Passover 
was observed, after which Ezra came up with the Law in his hand, 
and the establishment of the Law was followed by the mission of 
Nehemiah. This is all according to the programme which an 
author in the Greek period would draw up ; first, the release of 
the Jews ; then the sharp separation from the Samaritans — for 
tthese, according to the author's view, were the only people left 
behind when Judah was carried away ; next, the building of the 
Temple ; after that, the reintroduction of the Law ; and finally, 
the rehabilitation of the city by the rebuilding of the walls. 

But history does not usually move along the lines we mark 
out for it, and the endeavour to make a consistent histori- 
cal picture on the basis of thp Chronicler's account, in- 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 347 

creases in difficulty with every fresh detail which comes into 
view. The objections to the historicity of the decree of Cyrus 
have already been noticed. We may not be willing to as- 
sert that the Hebrew historical writers decorated their narra- 
tives with imaginary decrees of kings and senates as they dec- 
orated them with the imaginary speeches of their heroes.^ But 
it is evident that a writer like the Chronicler might, on oc- 
casion, give his conception such a form. And the obvious im- 
possibility of the proclamation attributed to Cyrus throws a 
shadow upon the other documents alleged in this narrative. 

The next of these is a list of names — ostensibly a register of 
those who returned from the Exile. This list is repeated in the 
book of Nehemiah, and there we discover that it is the register of 
all the families which in the time of Nehemiah or later, claimed to 
belong to the district of Jerusalem, on the ground of having been 
carried into exile, and having returned thence. The most that 
it can show is the total number of those who had returned between 
the time of Cyrus and that of Nehemiah — nearly a hundred 
years. Whether it even shows this is a question. In any case, 
it has no bearing on the first return for which the author 
uses it.^ 

The further narrative of this early period is unintelligible. The 
alleged letter, by which the enemies of Judah and Benjamin 
troubled them, and put a stop to the building of the Temple, 
does not belong in this connexion. The author of the narrative 
speaks of events in the reign of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, both of 

^ Stade speaks of the '• well-known custom of ancient writers " so to do 
{Geschichte, II, p. 122), while Meyer denies the custom {Entstehung des 
Judentums, p.. 2). In this general form the discussion is unprofitable, and 
Willrich may go too far in charging wholesale forgery of decrees on the 
Jews of a later time {Jtcdaica, p. 40 fif. ). But for the Judaisrh of the third 
and second centuries before Christ, the books of Daniel and Esther furnish 
sufficient evidence. 

"^ Compare Ezra, 2 and Neh. 7 ^-'''. The extent of the agreement is shown 
by Meyer, Entsteh. des Judentums, p. 141 ff. He also shows that the most 
of the names occur among those who signed the covenant (Neh. 10). A 
number of them are found also among those who are said to have returned 
with Ezra (Ezra, 8). That the narrative of the return in Ezra, I, was origi- 
nally fuller is shown by Torrey in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1897), 
p. 168 f. On the whole question of the composition of the books, see Tor- 
rey's Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah (Giessen, 
1896). 



348 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY • 

them later than Darius. The complaint to Xerxes is only alluded 
to, the one to Artaxerxes is reproduced in its Aramaic text. But 
on reading it we are astonished to find that it speaks not of re- 
building the Temple, but of building the walls of the city. It is 
evident that these are two very different things, and they must 
not be confused in our thought. To fortify the walls of the city 
would be an act of doubtful loyalty. Jerusalem as a fortress had 
always been difficult to conquer. We may well suppose that its 
reputation in this respect was known to the Persian king. We 
should expect a complaint against such a work to be received 
and heeded at court. But the exiles — or whoever was at work — 
were rebuilding not the walls, but the Temple, and this was a 
very different matter. Against this no valid objection could be 
made. A venerable sanctuary had a claim upon the tolerance 
and even the favour of the monarch. The letter given in this 
connexion,^ which is ostensibly directed against the rebuilding 
of the Temple, really declares that the returned exiles are rebuild- 
ing the walls. Only thus can the writers rouse the fear of the 
king, lest the city, once fortified, should withhold the taxes. 

It must be clear either that the letter thus cited, in answer to 
which the work was stopped, was a gratuitous libel or that it does 
not belong in this connexion. If it were a gratuitous libel 
it ought to have been easy for the Jews to show that it was 
baseless. In any case the Jews should have shown the de- 
cree of Cyrus already in their hands ; it is impossible to sup. 
pose that they had not received and preserved a copy. The 
only place in which the letter can have any meaning is in the 
narrative of the rebuilding of the walls under Nehemiah. This 
took place under Artaxerxes, and the enemies of Judah and Jeru- 
salem were active enough to make such a letter not improbable. 
But it cannot belong where the Chronicler has placed it. 

The second letter (with its reply) is concerned with the build- 
ing of the Temple, and it is sent by a royal official whose duty it 
was to take note of what went on in his province. How much 
weight we can accord to it in the narrative in which we find it 
must depend upon the picture we may form from other sources. 
Fortunately, other sources are within our reach in the books of 

1 Ezra, 4 ^^"'\ notice v.". The writers here claim to have been settled in 
Samaria, by the great and noble Asnapper (Ashurbanipal), which does not 
agree with the mention of Esarhaddonin y.^. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 349 

Haggai and Zechariah.^ These two prophets took a prominent 
part in what went on in Jerusalem at this time. Both of them 
prophesied in the reign of Darius I, who came to the throne in 
521 B.c.^ The change of ruler was, as so often in the East, the 
signal for outbreaks in several of the provinces. It is not un- 
likely that the Jews saw in these disorders signs of the approach 
of their deliverance.^ For some reason the prophets felt that the 
time to rebuild the Temple had come ; the people, on the other 
hand, felt that the Messianic time must first be manifest, then the 
Temple would be rebuilt. In the second year of Darius " came 
the word of Yahweh by the hand of Haggai the prophet, say- 
ing : Say to Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, the pasha of Judah and to 
Joshua ben Jozadak the chief priest, saying : Thus says Yahweh 
Sabaoth : This people say the time has not yet come to build 
the House of Yahweh. . . . Is it a time for you to dwell in 
your panelled houses, while this House lies in ruins? 
Thus says Yahweh : Go to the hill country and fetch timber, and 
build this House, and I will take pleasure in it and will reveal 
my glory, says Yahweh." * To whom were these words addressed ? 
The traditional answer is that they were addressed to the re- 
turned exiles. It is pleaded on their behalf that they found so 
much to do in establishing themselves in their new surroundings 
that they were compelled to neglect the Temple. But this is 
strange. The exiles had returned (according to the account in 
Ezra) for the express purpose of rebuilding the Temple. For 
this they were armed with the decree of Cyrus, and for this they 
had received free-will offerings from their fellow-exiles and a 
valuable set of vessels from Cyrus.^ Why they should have left 
everything undone for fifteen years is inexplicable. 

1 The first section of Zechariah (1-8) alone comes into view here. The 
rest of the book confessedly belongs in a later period. 

^ The reader may remind himself that Cyrus was succeeded by Cambyses, 
who carried the Persian arms into Egypt. After him came Pseudo-Smer- 
dis. This impostor was slain by a band of nobles who put Darius Hystas- 
pes on the throne. Cf. Justi, Geschichte des Alten Persiens, pp. 48-67. 

3 This is denied by so good an authority as Wellhausen, Skizzen und 
Vorarbeiten, V, p. 170. 

* Haggai, i ^-*, ' ^ A clause has come into the Massoretic text by the error 
of a scribe and is therefore here omitted. 

^ If Torrey is correct in filling out the text of Ezra, I, from the Greek Es- 
dras, the original account of the Chronicler also gave a large yearly sub- 
vention in money for the building ; cf. Journal of. Bib. Lit. 1897, p. 170 ; and 



350 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

We have already seen that the alleged letter to Artaxerxes ex- 
plains nothing, though the Chronicler put it into his narrative for 
the purpose of explaining something. Haggai, at least, knows 
nothing of any earlier attempt, of any subvention, of any decree of 
Cyrus, of any hindrance on the part of the Samaritan colonists. 
Haggai is moving the people to rebuild the Temple. Why does 
he not remind them that this was the purpose of the return? 
Why does he not recall the earlier attempt as an illustration of 
their zeal ? Why does he not remind them that they had expe- 
rienced the pain of being banished from this sacred spot ? One 
would think that such arguments would be ready to his hand 
and that in addition he would emphasise God's gracious purpose 
in bringing them back, as well as His use of Cyrus as an instru- 
ment. But these arguments are conspicuous by their absence. 

Haggai knows nothing of a return of the exiles — this is the fact 
for which we must account. To account for it we must get rid 
of the Chronicler's theory that all Judah had been carried away 
and that its land had been left empty. It is evident that this 
writer knows of only two parties in the land of Israel — those who 
had been in exile and the Samaritan colonists. In this he is 
mistaken. No country is ever completely denuded of its inhab- 
itants. Judah certainly was not thus denuded, for the Hebrew 
records themselves say that Nebuchadrezzar left enough people to 
care for the vineyards and plantations. That these were not 
always of the lowest class of the people is made evident by the 
book of Jeremiah and the history of Gedaliah there given. 
Whoever and whatever these people were, they felt themselves to 
be true Judaites. Ezekiel, in fact, finds that they attached too 
much importance to themselves as the only true Israel. They 
claimed that if Abraham, who was only one man, received the 
land of promise, much more might they, who were many, hope 
to make their title clear.' 

In the seventy years that had elapsed since the fall of Jerusalem 
this community had enjoyed peace under Babylonian and Per- 
sian governors. They had been allowed to maintain some of 
their ancestral institutions and had preserved the ancestral relig- 

the decree of Darius which purports to reaffirm that of Cyrus, expressly 
stipulates that the expense shall be borne by the royal treasury (Ezra, 6*). 

^ Ezekiel, 33 ^*"^'. The bitterness of the prophet is a foretaste of the exclu- 
siveness which manifested itself in the community organised by Nehemiah. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 351 

ion. It is a mark of Persian tolerance that they are now under a 
governor who is a member of their own royal house. For Zerub- 
babel was a grandson of Jehoiachin — that unfortunate king of 
Judah who was carried to Babylon by Nebuchadrezzar. From 
his name we gather that he was born in Babylonia.^ By his side 
we find a priest, Joshua, doubtless of the ancient priestly line. 
It is likely that worship at the site of the temple had never alto- 
gether ceased. Soon after the burning of the building we hear 
of men coming from Ephraim to make their offerings at the ruined 
sanctuary.^ The sacredness of such a site could not be destroyed 
by any act of the invading Chaldeans. In accordance with an- 
cient Israelitish custom a rude altar of unhewn stone could be 
erected on such a site at any time. 

All the probabilities point, therefore, to a Judaite community 
settled at this period in the immediate vicinity of the old capital 
or even within its fragmentary walls. Time had to some degree 
healed the ravages made by Nebuchadrezzar's invasion. Equally 
with their brethren in Babylonia these people looked for the 
restoration of the old commonwealth. But they had no reason 
to suppose that there must first be a return of the exiles. This is 
the community to which our prophets appealed. From their own 
resources they responded to the appeal. It is likely that the 
Babylonian Jews still took a keen interest in their old home and 
sanctuary. The effort to rebuild their Temple would meet with 
their sympathy. But no move on their part to return home was 
prompted by Cyrus. 

If we had the testimony of Haggai and Zechariah alone there- 
fore we should not dream of a wholesale return such as the 
Chronicler alleges. Let us turn now to the second letter which 
he gives us as written from Palestine to Darius.' According to 

' Koster doubts the Babylonian birthplace and the Davidic descent {Wider- 
herstellung Israels, p. 39 f.), and it is true that Haggai lays no emphasis 
upon the Davidic descent. Moreover, the genealogy comes from the Chron- 
icler, whose untrustworthiness has been sufficiently commented upon. It 
still remains probable, however, that the Messianic expectations of Zerub- 
babel's contemporaries point to his Davidic blood. Of Zerubbabel's prede- 
cessor, Sheshbazzar, we know nothing, except that he bears a Babylonian 
name ; cf. Meyer, Entstehung, p. 76. 

2Jer. 41 s. 

' The account is Ezra, 5 ' — 6 '*. It is clear that if the whole account were 
stricken out we should have a perfectly good connexion, 5 '^ being contin- 
ued directly by 6 '^ 



352 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

the narrative, Tatnai, governor of the Persian province of Syria,* 
with his suite came to Jerusalem and discovered the work going 
on at the Temple. Inquiring for the authority under which the 
builders were acting, these men wrote an account to Darius. In 
this they repeated the allegations made by the Jews concerning 
the earlier decree of Cyrus and asked for instructions. On recep- 
tion of the message the king had search made in the treasury at 
Ecbatana, and the decree of Cyrus was found. Darius therefore 
renewed the decree of Cyrus, or at least directed the governor to 
let the Jews proceed with the building, ordering him at the same 
time to reimburse them from the royal revenues what they had 
already expended, and from the same source to furnish whatever 
the priests should require for the services of the House. It is 
easy to see the inconsistencies of the text with what Haggai and 
Zechariah reveal. The writer is not even careful to preserve 
verisimilitude ; he makes the petitioners request that search be 
made for the decree of Cyrus at Babylon, and then relates that it 
was found at Ecbatana. It is inconceivable that Tatnai should 
quote without comment the Jews' declaration that it was Yahweh 
who gave their forefathers into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar. The 
description of the Temple as sixty cubits high and sixty cubits 
broad is unintelligible, as is the direction that it should be built 
with three rows of cut stone and one of timber.^ Finally the 
imprecation of Darius, praying that the God of the Jews would 
blot out any one who should put out his hand to change the de- 
cree or to destroy the House, is entirely out of place in a royal 
mandate. 

Is must be clear that this correspondence is simply the logical 
sequel of the decree of Cyrus and can claim no more authenticity. 
The author started with the theory (given him by tradition no 
doubt) that Cyrus had ordered the Temple rebuilt, and that the 
work had been violently stopped. Finding from the books of 
Haggai and Zechariah that the rebuilding actually took place in 
the reign of Darius he was obliged to remove the prohibition by 
a new decree. No more impulse was needed in order to produce 
the letter and decree we have been considering. They represent 

^ "Beyond the River" is the name of the province which included the 
region from the upper Euphrates to the border of Egypt. 

^ The author was familiar with brick walls bound together with timber, 
but examples of stone walls thus laid have not yet been found. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 353 

what must have taken place had the primary tradition been cor- 
rect. Whether the Chronicler himself composed the documents 
or whether he adopted them from another narrative — a midrash 
of his own school of thought — we are not able to determine and 
it does not much matter. 

For historical purposes we are obliged to recognise first, that 
the Chronicler is dominated by a tradition which was largely the 
effect of theological prepossession ; secondly, that the preposses- 
sion incapacitated him from drawing a reliable picture of events ; 
thirdly, that the decree of Cyrus is impossible; fourthly, that 
the letter to Artaxerxes is of no use for the period under discus- 
sion; lastly, that the theory of a return, of an interruption of the 
work, of any interference by Darius, is contradicted by Haggai 
and Zechariah, who were contemporary with the events alleged. 
To this we may add that the theory of a return was not held by 
Jewish writers in the postexilic period, except so far as they 
came under the influence of the Chronicler. Nehemiah in his 
memoirs, as quoted by the Chronicler himself, is ignorant of 
any return. Malachi makes not the slightest reference to what 
must have been fresh in men's minds in his time had it taken 
place at all. At a still later time the author of the book of 
Daniel is sure that the exile is not yet at an end. The mirac- 
ulous intervention of Providence, for which the majority of the 
exiles waited, never came. And the longer they waited the 
more firmly they found themselves rooted in their adopted 
country. 

Though the people to whom Haggai preached were dwelling 
in panelled houses, they complained of their poverty. They had 
suffered from drought and bad harvests. Their poverty did not 
come (so far as we can learn) from the fact that they were bring- 
ing under cultivation land that had been for decades neglected. 
Nor did they now plead anything of the kind ; at the word of 
the prophet they went to work. Possibly the old solid founda- 
tion walls of the Temple were still in place. At the beginning 
of the work, indeed, there were not wanting voices to declare 
that this house would never be like the old one. Haggai does 
not hesitate to allow the material inferiority of the present build- 
ing. But he is firm in his conviction that its real glory will be 
greater: ''For thus says Yahweh Sabaoth : Yet a little while 
and I shall shake heaven and earth and sea and land ; and I will 



354 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

shake all nations and the treasures of all nations shall come and 
I will fill this house with riches, says Yahweh Sabaoth." ^ With 
such encouragement the work went steadily foiward. 

The people, however, were impatient to enjoy those material 
evidences of Yahweh's favour which the prophet had promised. 
This comes out in his use of a parable. Haggai is directed to 
ask the priests two ritual questions. The first is this : If one 
carry sacrificial flesh in the skirt of his robe and the robe touch 
bread or wine, will the bread or wine then become sacred ? The 
priests answer in the negative. The other question is whether, if 
a man unclean (taboo) by contact with a dead body touch bread 
or wine, the bread or wine will become unclean. The response 
to this is in the affirmative — illogical as it seems to us. By tradi- 
tion the contagion of the unclean is stronger than the contagion 
of that which is consecrated. The familiar law is made use of by 
the prophet to account for the delay in the promised blessing. 
The people expected immediate evidence of divine favour in an- 
swer to their new zeal. The prophet replied in substance that 
the contagion of their former indifference had infected them too 
deeply to be immediately removed. The consecration of the 
new zeal could not be expected to work at once. But (the in- 
timation is) it will work in time and the change will yet show 
itself. 

At about the same time with this discourse of Haggai, the 
prophet was reinforced by his colleague, Zechariah. The purport 
of Zechariah's first message is simply that though the men of former 
times had passed away — prophets and leaders — yet the word of 
Yahweh was abiding. That word had fulfilled itself upon the 
disobedient former generation. Upon that word the people were 
still depending, but its fulfilment was conditioned upon their 
obedience. One feels the faint-heartedness of the people who 
were thus addressed. 

The further visions of Zechariah make us realise the great 

^ Hag. 2 ^ ^ It can scarcely be accidental that the account describes the 
people as the remnant of the people, or as all the people of the land. This 
language flatly contradicts the theory of the Chronicler. It is perhaps super- 
fluous to insist on this. But one may be allowed to notice the significant 
concession of Meyer {Entstehung des Judentums, p. 167) that the chiefs 
of the districts belonged to the clans which had not been carried into 
exile, but which had possession of the land when the Jews returned under 
Cyrus. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 355 

change which has taken place in the behevers' theory of the uni- 
verse since the time of Jeremiah. Yahweh now has His throne 
in heaven, and His administration has been elaborated much after 
the fashion of the Persian court. ' He has His servants who go 
about to do His bidding. Some of these are interested in the 
welfare of Judah, and the prophet is permitted to overhear their 
conversation. He sees the heavenly post-riders, who bring news 
of the state of things throughout the earth. He hears them re- 
port : " We have gone over the earth, and all is quiet and secure. ' ' 
Then he hears the angel of Yahweh ^ ask his king : '' How long 
wilt Thou not pity Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which 
Thou hast been angry these seventy years ? ' ' We see that the 
prophet had been longing to hear of those overturnings of the 
nations which should herald the promised Day of Yahweh. If, 
as has already been suggested, the disorders which arose at the 
accession of Darius were the occasion of the prophet's first activ- 
ity, these disorders must have been speedily quelled, or else must 
have been confined to distant regions. We cannot otherwise ac- 
count for the message before us.^ The seventy years of Yahweh's 
anger are the seventy years of Jeremiah's prophecy. The angel 
of the vision is troubled (as is the prophet) by the fact that no 
signs of Yahweh's grace are seen, though the period of punish- 
ment has passed.^ But the expostulating angel is comforted, and 
the prophet is bidden to say that Yahweh's anger is now turned 
against the nations which He employed to execute His decrees 
upon Jerusalem. For in carrying out these decrees they have 
gone far beyond their instructions and His intentions. Now He 
is about to have compassion on Jerusalem, and His House is to be 
rebuilt. We are reminded by this again of the organisation of 
the Persian empire, where a powerful satrap might easily evade or 
exceed the commands of the sovereign, and not be detected unless 
the sovereign's personal attention were called to the matter. This 
vision is followed by another which shows the workmen ready 

^ That is, the particular angel who had brought revelations to Israel in 
times past, and who is, therefore, specially interested in the fortunes of this 
people. 

2 Zech. I ^2. Meyer says : " Syria was not aflfected by the rebellions of 
521-519 B.C." Entstehung, p. 82. 

' The mention of this period of time seems definitely to locate the vision 
in the reign of Darius I instead of in the reign of a later Darius, as has been 
advocated by some critics. 



356 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

with their tools to dehorn the nations which have oppressed Israel. 
Yahweh is, in fact, ready to take His journey to His ancient dwell- 
ing, the Temple.^ 

It could hardly be that the zeal of the people should be aroused 
for the work of rebuilding, without Messianic hopes and expecta- 
tions being also quickened. We are not much surprised, therefore, 
to find the prophets urging the people not only to rebuild the 
Temple, but also to take direct steps toward the realisation of the 
Kingdom of God. Of course, rebeUion against the Persian power 
was not to be thought of — though independence was the goal 
toward which the people must be moving even when not avow- 
ing it to themselves. For the present, internal affairs might be 
arranged in accordance with Ezekiel's programme of complete 
consecration. The first and most obvious thing to do was to 
make the priesthood independent of the secular power. This we 
may suppose to be one interest of what we may call the Messianic 
party. Others there were who looked on any innovation with 
suspicion. They found reason to complain of Joshua, the chief 
priest. They thought him already too powerful, or too conspic- 
uous in the community. Possibly they found fault with his per- 
sonal character. Zechariah is altogether on his side, and makes a 
defence of him in a dramatic vision. In this vision he sees the 
heavenly court of justice in session, with Yahweh in the character 
of presiding judge. The official prosecutor is present in the per- 
son of Satan, who here appears for the first time in Hebrew litera- 
ture. He is obviously not the spirit of evil who appears in later 
Jewish writings ; he is only an officer of justice, whose business 
it is to see that the case against criminals is properly presented.^ 
Before this court Joshua is brought, clothed in the miserable ap- 
parel which an accused person puts on to move the mercy of the 

1 Zech. I '-2 ^. The exhortation to flee from Babylon, which is found a 
little later (2 ^^), is another indication that no return had yet taken place ; 
cf. also 6 ^5, 8 '' ^ The desperate attempt of Sellin, Studieti ziir Entsteh- 
ungsgesch. der Jiid. Gejneinde, II, p. 45 ff., to harmonise Haggai and Zech- 
ariah with the received view, is the best evidence that reconciliation is im- 
possible. I have not seen Hoonacker's argument, a considerable part of 
which is adopted by Sellin. 

^ Satan is, therefore, in this period a good angel, carrying out the will of 
Yahweh. In the book of Job he is virtually the same — more distinctly the 
inspector of morals, perhaps. Babylonian precedents are given by Zimmern 
in Keilinschr. und Altes Testament,^ p. 463. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 357 

court. As the matter is presented to us, we hear nothing of the 
charges, but the sentence which is pronounced is in Joshua's 
favour. Satan is rebuked, Joshua is clothed in seemly garments 
with the tiara on his head, and he is given jurisdiction over the 
house and court of Yahweh. The meaning is that the new prom- 
inence of the high priest (as we may call him), has the endorse- 
ment of the prophet.^ And this prominence is authorised as one 
feature of the Messianic time, for in immediate connexion with 
it comes a specific promise of the Branch — a name for the Messiah 
possibly as old as Jeremiah. Joshua is described as a sign that 
the Messiah is to come in the immediate future. In fact, in Zech- 
ariah's view the man is already in Jerusalem, though not yet 
crowned.^ In a later discourse he is described as the one who is 
to build the Temple of Yahweh. 

Careful examination of these passages leaves no doubt that 
Zechariah identified Zerubbabel with the expected Messiah. 
The beginning of the Temple was, in his mind, the harbinger of 
the restoration of Israel under the ideal king. Zerubbabel was 
to carry that work to completion and then be crowned, after 
which he and Joshua were jointly to administer the government. 
As if to leave no doubt in our minds, the prophet finds new oc- 
casion to certify his belief. Some of the exiles, we learn, having 
heard of the project of rebuilding the Temple, have sent a dele- 
gation with votive offerings for the sanctuary. These men are 
sojourning in Jerusalem, and Zechariah is commanded to take 
the gold and silver they have brought and make of it a crown. 
The crown is indeed to be kept in the Temple as a memorial of 
the givers. But it is to be none the less a sign of the kingship 
of Zerubbabel.^ With this agrees the promise of Haggai to 
Zerubbabel : *' I will take thee, Zerubbabel, my servant, and 

^ Zech. 3 ^ '. The description of Joshua as a brand plucked from the btirn- 
ing (v. 2) has been urged as evidence that Joshua had been in exile. But 
the phrase is equally appropriate (even more so) if he was a member of the 
the remnant community that had not been carried away. 

2 Zech. 3 ^ The word Branch as designation of the Messiah is found in 
Jer. 23^ and t^t, ^^ Both passages are of doubtful authenticity, as is Isaiah 
II ^, a passage similar in meaning though not using the same word, 
Zechariah's meaning is unmistakable; of. 6^^. 

^The present text (Zech. 6^^) puts the crown on the head of Joshua, but 
this is an alteration of the original sense, as is evident from the whole con- 
text. 



358 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

will make thee like a seal ring, for thee have I chosen, says 
Yahweh."^ 

The various visions in which Zechariah sets forth the coming 
golden age may be briefly noticed. He expects the divine ad- 
ministration to purge the community of the sinners, whose pres- 
ence is an offence to Yahweh, by an act of supernatural efficacy. 
Thus we must interpret the flying roll written over with curses, 
which goes about and destroys the evil-doers together with their 
houses. The conscience of the people is doubtless burdened (as in 
the time of Ezekiel) by the thought of the guilt inherited from the 
fathers. To relieve them, the prophet pictures the guilt in the 
form of a woman who is shut up in a cask, and carried away by 
two winged creatures to the land of Babylonia — a materiahstic 
expression of the thought that Yahweh's wrath will no longer 
find its object in Judah, but in the land of the oppressor.^ 

That the Messianic time has dawned and that the full glory of 
its day is soon to appear is the absorbing thought of Zechariah. 
That its benefits will not be confined to Judah is indicated when 
the prophet declares that many nations will join themselves to 
Yahweh in that day and will become His people ; and again that 
ten men of various nations will attach themselves to each Jew in 
order to find the true God. This thought, with which Zecha- 
riah closed his book, is more eloquently expressed in a passage 
now imbedded in the v/orks of older prophets, but which may 
belong in this period : ''It shall come to pass in the latter days 
that the Temple Mount shall be established as the highest of the 
mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills ; and all nations 
shall stream to it, and many peoples shall set forth and say : 
Come, let us go up to the Mount of Yahweh, to the House of 
the God of Jacob." ^ 

The vitality of the Messianic hope is evidenced by the fact 

^ Hag. 2^* The rejection of Jehoiachin is described as the plucking the 
seal ring from Yahweh's right hand (Jer. 22 ^^), and the election of Zerub- 
babel to the kingship could not be better set forth than by the language of 
Haggai. It is indeed probable that Haggai has Jeremiah's metaphor in 
mind. 

^ The two visions are contained irx Zech. 5. Chapter 4 gives the vision of 
the two olive trees, and is designed to assure Zerubbabel of divine support. 

^ Compare Zech. 8 20-23 y^^ith Isaiah, 2 ^-^ Mic. 4 '"*. The latter passage, 
deservedly beloved, must be a late insertion in the text of the two prophetic 
books — as is now generally recognised. 



J 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 359 

that it survived the disappointment which must have come upon 
its cherishers at the close of this period. The impetus which 
was given by the prophetic exhortations was sufficient to secure 
the completion of the Temple (in some form) in the sixth year 
of Darius.^ But with this date thick darkness falls upon the lit- 
tle community in Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity. It may 
be that the extravagant expectations which attached themselves 
to Zerubbabel made him obnoxious to the Persian court. It 
may be that an attempt was made by him to rebuild the city 
walls, and that this produced a crisis from which the city emerged 
again in ruins. ^ More probably, however, the little common- 
wealth suffered only from the accidents of its position. Evidence 
of the special presence of Yahweh there was none. The city 
was imperfectly fortified, and in times when the central govern- 
ment was careless it must have suffered from the raids of the 
Bedawin. The Edomites were pushing up from the south — small 
blam^ to them, for the Nabateans were crowding on them in the 
rear. 

To the momentary enthusiasm aroused by the prophets, there- 
fore, succeeded a period of depression. The brethren in Babylonia 
may have had a sentimental interest in the restored Temple and 
we may suppose that they sent occasional contributions to it. 
But like the Jews of later ages they were probably willing to stay 
where they found themselves well off rather than give up a cer- 
tainty for an uncertain livelihood. The people in Judah were 
heavily taxed. The new government — high-priest alongside of 
pasha — can hardly have been without its disadvantages. Even 
Zechariah had some suspicion that the two rulers might not al- 
ways agree.^ In a small community facing the problems of 
poverty, party feeling is sure to run high. The Persian govern- 

' The date is given by Meyer as April 9, 515 B.C. {Entstehung des Jtiden- 
turns, p. 54). 

2 Ingenious attempts to write a history of Zerubbabel's rise and fall have 
been made, of which the most elaborate is Sellin's Serubbabel (1898). His 
arguments are more acute than convincing, resting on precarious theories 
concerning the date of the documents. The author now admits that he was 
mistaken in some of his conclusions — cf. his Studien zur Entstehungs. 
geschichte der Jildischen Gemeinde, I (1901), pp. 230-238. 

'As pointed out by Wellhausen on Zech. 6'^. If "one bad general is 
better than two good ones," the certainty of the dual control working badly 
in any time of stress may be assumed. 



360 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ment removed Zerubbabel — at least we hear no more of a Davidic 
pasha. We have pretty good evidence that the Temple fell into 
decay and that its services were an object of contempt on the 
part of the majority of the people. Doubtless the priests were 
unable to support themselves ^ except by menial occupations which 
kept them away from the sanctuary or interfered with the decent 
observance of the rites. 

The state of things in the Jerusalem of this period is vividly 
put before us by the little book of Malachi — a voice and nothing 
more — deploring evils which were felt by a few spiritually minded 
men who held fast their hope in circumstances that prompted to 
despair.^ The prophet begins by encouraging his people in the 
face of the Edomite invasion, giving them the assurance that 
though Esau was Jacob's brother, he was hated by Yahweh in 
proportion as Jacob was loved. The author's main purpose, 
however, is to rebuke the laxity and faint-heartedness of both 
priests and people. In the circumstances that we have surmised 
we can hardly wonder that the priests have become indifferent to 
the honour of their God. They bring maimed and sick animals 
to the altar and say : // is no harm} The prophet points out 
the indignity thereby offered to Yahweh. If they were to make 
such presents to the civil ruler they would be taught a lesson: 
'* Bring it to the Pasha; will he look favourably upon you?" 
The indignity is the more striking because it is in contrast with 
the conduct of the Gentiles. They know how to render accept- 
able homage to the one true God : " From the rising of the sun 
to its going down, my name is great among the nations. Every- 
where pure offerings are brought to my name because my name 
is great among the nations ; hut you keep on profaning it in that 

'• The demand that the ministers of religion should be enabled to live a 
menschemviirdiges Dasein seems reasonable in the interest of religion itself. 

^ The book is really anonymous, Malachi (my messenger) being only a 
conjecture of the editors. Perhaps the disrepute into which the prophets 
fell after the non-fulfilment of the hopes fostered by Haggai and Zechariah, 
led the author to conceal his identity. The text of the book has been help- 
fully treated by Torrey in the Journal of Bib. Lit. for 1898, pp. 1-15. On 
the Edomite possession of Judah, see an article by the same author, ibid., 
p. 16 ff. 

2 Is it a case where the priests substitute inferior animals for those actually 
presented by the worshippers ? It would seem to be to the interest of the 
priests themselves to refuse unfit offerings. But by substitution they might 
profit themselves. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 361 

you say: The table of Yahweh is contemptible."^ The plain 
teaching of the passage is that the most worthy worship of the 
Gentiles is really offered to the true God. 

And yet the foreign cults which are making their way into the 
Jewish community are not a manifestation of true religion — prob- 
ably we should feel the same way about the petty superstitions of 
the Syrian peasants. These superstitions are attracting the wayward 
hearts of the Jews, so that the covenant with Yahweh is likely to 
be forgotten.^ The danger of such defection was less threatening, 
however, than that which arose from the general scepticism of the 
people. They said that good and evil were both alike to Yah- 
weh ; it was impossible to call Him a God of justice. The only 
reply that our author can make is to repeat the promise of former 
prophets — there will be a sudden revelation of that justice, a Day 
of Yahweh. But as with the former prophets this Day is not 
necessarily a day of good to Israel, so now we hear : " Who may 
endure the day of His coming, and who can stand firm when He 
shall appear ? For He is like the refiner's fire and like the fuller's 
alkali. ... I will draw near you for judgment, and I will 
be a swift witness against the sorcerers and the adulterers and the 
perjurers and against those who oppress the hireling, the widow, 
and the fatherless, and against those who abuse the client and 
who do not fear Me, says Yahweh Sabaoth." ^ So we hear again 
the old prophetic demand for righteousness between man and 
man. The conscience of the ritualist has not been blunted by 
his scrupulousness in matters of external service — though this 
scrupulousness would not have been intelligible to the older 
prophets. 

Although the prophet rebukes the priests for their neglect of 
the services, he recognises the fact that it is the people's treat- 
ment of the priests which is at the bottom of the evil. The Tem- 
ple service cannot be worthily maintained unless the contributions 

^ Mai. I 2. The universalism of the declaration is one of the most remark- 
able things in the Old Testament. But it does not seem possible to under- 
stand the passage in any other way than it is taken above. The universalism 
is the more remarkable because of the author's ritualistic tendencies. 

* This seems to be the only way to understand the passage, Mai. 2 ^"-^^* 
The other view, which makes it refer to intermarriage with foreigners, pre- 
sents serious difficulties ; see the discussion of the passage in Wellhausen's 
Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, V. 

' Mai. 3 2-5. 



362 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

are regularly made. The people seem to have withheld the tithes 
on the plea that the harvests are bad. Malachi holds, with the 
earlier prophets, that fidelity to Yahweh will make the harvests 
good. And fidelity to Yahweh will be manifested by bringing 
the tithes and first-fruits. So we find a specific promise that if 
the tithes and offerings are brought in full measure, the rains will 
be abundant and the harvests bountiful.^ Even with prompt 
payment, however, it is not certain that the tithes will be suffi- 
cient to support the priests. At least, the ecclesiastical taxes 
were made heavier at a later time. 

The period, then, was one of great depression. The faith of 
the great body of the people had grown cold. The most signifi- 
cant fact is the existence of a little group of faithful spirits who 
will not yield to the prevailing scepticism. They are constant in 
their observance of the ancestral Law — though even they are not 
certain of seeing any reward. They confess that they felicitate 
the bold blasphemers who have tested the ways of God and who 
find themselves none the worse for their wickedness.^ The an- 
swer of the prophets to this temptation was the assurance that the 
day burning as an oven would soon come when they should tread 
the unrighteous under foot. They were to wait long for that day 
and die without the sight. Unknown to themselves, perhaps, 
the mainspring of their action was the conviction that it must be 
better to serve Yahweh even in adversity than to dwell in the 
tents of wickedness. Something of this kind was in the prophet's 
mind when he gave them this word of comfort : " Yahweh has 
attended and heard, and a memorandum has been written down 
before Him for those who fear Him and who think on His name. 
They shall be mine own, says Yahweh Sabaoth, in the day when 
I act, and I -will deal gently with them as a man deals with an 
obedient son." The hope of that day was deferred long enough 
to make the heart sick, but the thought of the book of remem- 
brance stayed up the sinking spirit. If one is not forgotten of 
his God, he may rest content. 

The continued existence of this little band of kindred spirits — an 

^ Mai. 3 ^"'®. The contrast to Amos's scornful treatment of the tithes (Amos, 
4 *) will occur to everyone. Malachi, it may be remarked, shows no ac- 
quaintance with the Priest-code. The tithes he has in mind are those com- 
manded in Deuteronomy. 

cf. vv. 16, 19. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 363 

Israel within Israel — is the most important fact which this period 
has to show. The future of religion lay in their keeping. The 
faith and hope they kept alive were based on a true experience 
of the divine presence. The traditions of the fathers were no 
doubt cherished among them, and for the most part they rested 
in the thought that though the day of judgment for the wicked 
was postponed, it must come in external and visible form. But 
from this circle one arose to protest against the whole doctrine of 
the divine administration of the world as it had been formulated 
by the fathers. Too clear-eyed to rest in delusive hopes, he 
looked at things as they are, and put on record the struggles and 
doubts which many were passing through, but were not able to 
voice. The book of Job was the result, one of the great works of 
the human spirit. Such a work could be the product only of a 
period of doubt and depression, and our reason for dating it at 
this time is that it emphasises the problems which became acute 
in this period. 

What was said in our discussion of Ezekiel shows how the 
question of the divine justice was forced upon the people by the 
experiences of the exile. How Yahweh could punish His people 
and yet not inflict undeserved suffering upon some individuals 
who were faithful to Him was a problem as difficult as it was 
painful. Ezekiel cut the knot by the strictness of his logic. 
With the energy of a determined spirit he drew the necessary in- 
ference from his doctrine of the divine nature. Yahweh is just ; 
therefore He punishes or rewards men according to their deserts 
— the man that sins shall die, the man that does righteously shall 
live. Such is the simple syllogism which he spins out to so great a 
length that we see he is bound to convince himself by the itera- 
tion. As the prophet had not learned to extend the sphere of 
the divine justice beyond the present life, the declaration means 
that the wicked are punished by early or painful physical death, 
while the righteous live out the years normal to humanity. The 
simplicity of the theory commends it to intense but narrow nat- 
ures. Such might hold it fast — by main strength of will and by 
shutting their eyes to daily experience. But the more reflective 
minds could not be blind to its difficulties. Especially were the 
experiences of the century that had passed since Ezekiel calcu- 
lated to shake their faith. Does the theory accord with the 
facts? As this question forced itself to the front, and as the facts 



364 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

were more closely interrogated, it became impossible to make 
the facts and the theory agree. 

The conclusion being invalidated, the premisses also are 
shaken. We must then give up the belief that Yahweh is just — 
this is the dreadful thought which presented itself to the in- 
quirer. And if he shrank from this, the problem returned to 
torment him again and again. Israel was not altogether sinful; 
why had it been so long scourged by the Gentiles ? The Gen- 
tiles were not more righteous ; why should they be allowed to 
rage without hindrance? The remnant of Judah, whether in 
Babylon or in Canaan, had turned to Yahweh with all their 
heart — some souls among them at least dealt justly and loved 
mercy and walked humbly with their God. Why should these 
still be the prey of the oppressor ? 

Writing with his heart's blood, the author of the book of Job 
debates rather than answers questions like these. He puts the 
problem in concrete form, but takes care to divest it of all ritual 
compHcations. It is not a question of Israel's prerogatives or of 
special divine revelation. It is a question of our common hu- 
manity — does God the Creator deal with His creatures on any 
principle that we can understand ? The question is stated in the 
narrative of Job, a man upright and God-fearing according to 
the patriarchal standard. The story had apparently been known 
before. Ezekiel, at any rate, names Job^ as one of three men 
distinguished for their righteousness, probably all of them also 
examples of deliverance in calamity. This is hardly the Job of 
our book, who is famous quite as much for his misfortunes as 
for his righteousness. It is in fact the combination of the mis- 
fortunes and the righteousness that makes the tragedy. 

The hero of the book, a perfect example of human virtue, is a 
hero of tragedy. After seeming to prove by his prosperity that 
the lot of man accords with the traditional theory — the righteous 
are prospered — he is suddenly plunged into the deepest affliction. 
His property is swept away in an hour, and in the same hour his 
children are cut down in the flower of youth. He himself is 
afflicted with a loathsome disease whose nature leaves him no 
hope of life, unless a hngering death extending into years of 

^Ezek. 14^*' ^^ It is noticeable that Ezekiel uses the three men to sup- 
port his theory of strict individual justice — by their personal righteousness 
they should deliver themselves but no one else, not even son or daughter. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 365 

• 

torture may be called life. This is the presentation of the 
problem. 

In the treatment of the problem three separate views seem to 
be embodied — another instance of the composite nature of He- 
brew literature. Popular tradition, which is the source of the 
story/ could not be content without poetic justice. Therefore 
we find the epilogue restoring Job to health and wealth, giving 
him another family and extending his life to patriarchal length 
It is evident that if this be the author's mind we have no prob- 
lem. A brief time of privation and suffering would be a trifle 
when balanced against an additional century of health and pros- 
perity. It is only when the fact of suffering becomes the lead- 
ing fact, and when reasonable hope of restoration is taken, away, 
that the problem becomes acute. 

We must suppose therefore that the epilogue is added or re- 
tained in deference to a tradition which already recounted the 
restoration of the sufferer. It is not inconsistent with this that 
the prologue indicates a partial solution of the problem. The 
question is : Why does God afflict the righteous ? One answer 
is given by the new angelology which we found coming into view 
in Zechariah. In that book we saw Joshua arraigned before the 
heavenly court with Satan as prosecutor ; so here we see the 
same court convened, but as a court of inquiry rather than as a 
court for trial. The angels appear in the Presence to report on 
the condition of the universe. Among them appears the prose- 
cutor, whose business is now that of a detective. To the ques- 
tion whether he has observed Job, the upright, he replies with an 
insinuation : Job's outward integrity cannot be denied, but it is 
not difficult to suppose that it is a matter of selfish calculation. 
When Yahweh rewards virtue with prosperity, mere selfish motives 
are enough to produce virtuous conduct. To Satan's declaration 
that if Job should lose his property, his piety will go also, 
Yahweh replies by giving him permission to make the experi- 
ment. The test is applied and Job's disinterestedness is trium- 
phantly established against this charge. But Satan takes his in- 
quisitorial office seriously. He has a second count to bring 
against the righteous man. Piety may be dictated by fear as well 

' This is most distinctly brought out by Duhm in his commentary {Kurzer 
Handkommentar). The theory is discussed at length by K. Kautzsch, 
Das Sogenannte Volksbiich von Hiob (1900). 



366 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

as by desire. Job has been overawed by the power of God dis- 
played in the calamities that have overtaken him. He now cringes 
before the hand that has smitten, fearing that it wdll be lifted 
for a final stroke. But (it is added) if the hope of life is taken 
away then the true state of his mind will appear — he will be seen 
not to be righteous but to be depraved, and he will blaspheme 
his Maker to His face. This test also is applied ; Job is smitten 
with leprosy in its most malignant form so that he must despair 
of life and has nothing to fear or to hope from Yahweh. He 
stands the test and holds fast his integrity. 

In the behaviour of Job under affliction we have undoubtedly 
one answer to our problem. The writer comforts himself with 
the thought that if we could see all that goes on in the divine 
council we should see a reason for much that is now obscure to 
us in the government of the world. Among the spiritual exist- 
ences there, as among men here, there may be doubt as to the 
reality of virtue — at least of human virtue. To prove that virtue 
is more than selfishness there is no way except to send calamity 
upon the virtuous. It concerns mankind and angels to be con- 
vinced that there is such a thing as disinterested goodness. 
This we may call a real solution of the problem. 

But it is far from satisfying the author of the poem. He seems, 
in fact, to ignore the solution, for the poetical part of the book 
makes no reference to Satan or to the desirability of testing virtue 
by calamity. The author's eye is fixed upon the sufferer who is 
ignorant that he is being experimented upon in the interest of 
truth. The struggles of the soul under the knife absorb the writer's 
attention. The tragedy is unfolded, as we see this soul wrestling 
with the thought that, though innocent, it has lost its God. In 
the dialogue this soul (which is the reflection of the writer's own 
soul) reveals itself to us — its deepest experiences, its yearnings 
and gropings, its passionate rejection of the popular theology. 
The interlocutors are Job and his three friends. These men, 
representatives of tradition and philosophy, come ostensibly to 
condole with him on his misfortunes. But their silence is elo- 
quent of something very different from sympathy. It shows that 
in their secret thought they are pronouncing judgment upon the 
sufferer. As in former times Job had concluded from a man's 
calamity that he had by sin incurred the just displeasure of God, 
so these uncomforting comforters are attributing to Job himself 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 367 

wickedness and hypocrisy, colossal in proportion to the greatness 
of his calamity. 

It is impossible for us, of a more advanced type of thought, to 
realise the depth of the misery into which the sufferer is thus 
plunged and which causes him to break out into curses against the 
day of his birth. It is not that he values the judgment of his 
friends ; it is because their theory has been his own. His life's 
faith is suddenly shown to be untenable. Where he had thought 
he could stay himself on God he found a void beneath his feet 
and felt himself falling into a bottomless abyss. While he was 
in prosperity it had been easy for him to believe that God is just 
and is a rewarder of His servants. Now that faith is gone. 

It is gone just because his conscience is clear. He knows with 
the certainty of inner conviction that he is not the flagrant sinner 
who alone could call down such signal punishment. As to the 
opposite conviction of the friends there can be no doubt, though 
they try to be considerate in their statements. So far as their 
convictions will allow they desire to spare their friend. But they 
have no doubt that this suffering is a punishment for sin. They 
show the grounds for their belief in the traditions of the ancients 
confirmed by their own observation. They claim to have been 
taught by divine revelation concerning the divine method of 
dealing with men. With phrases of studied mildness they invite 
Job now to repent of his sin, and they even promise restoration 
to health and prosperity in case he follows this advice. 

The terrible mockery of such promises to a man in his con- 
dition only increases the perplexity and the despair of the suf- 
ferer, further aggravated as the friends proceed to make direct 
charges of sin against him. Turning about everywhither, he 
finds no hope. The best that he can wish for is annihilation. 
He accuses his friends of faihng him at the time when he most 
needs them. He describes his sufferings, bodily and mental. 
At last in desperation, with what seems to them effrontery, he 
expostulates with God. Why should he, an insignificant crea- 
ture, be watched as though he were the rebellious ocean or the 
primeval dragon that threatened to undo the work of creation? 
Would it not be more worthy of God to forgive human failings, 
seeing that the divine dignity cannot be injured by the puny 
efforts of the creature ? ^ 

» Job, 7 12-21. 



368 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

To the friends this is but the raving of a madman, and it con- 
firms them in their theory. To their insistence that God must 
be just, Job now gives his assent, but in a form which shows that 
he still denies. He will concede their position if might makes 
right: 

*• Verily I know that it is so : how can man be righteous before God ? 

If He should choose to bring suit against him, he could not answer 
one count in a thousand. 

The wise in mind and mighty in strength ! Who could oppose Him 
and come forth whole ? 

Before Him who moves mountains without knowing it, and over- 
turns them in His wrath ! " ' 

One does not argue with the master of a hundred legions. But 
this is no answer to the main question. If the theory of the 
friends comes only to this, that God is always in the right be- 
cause He has the power to crush opposition, then there is no 
debate. But then, too, God is not the God in whom Job has 
trusted. 

This is the anguish of the situation. The God of justice has 
disappeared and a powerful tyrant alone remains. This (Job 
thinks) is really what the friends mean. Justice is not what they 
are looking for. They look only for indications of the tyrant's 
mood and then manoeuvre to keep on His side, for He is the 
strongest ; just as the sycophants about an absolute monarch are 
ready to justify his most cruel or most oppressive whims. It 
still remains true that Job is innocent — this he will protest till 
his last breath. And he could prove it to God Himself if 
only they could meet on equal terms, as man meets man in ar- 
gument. If God would lay aside His terrors, if there were an 
umpire who would impartially consider the evidence, he would 
rejoice to defend his case. Even as it is, at the risk of offend- 
ing his omnipotent adversary he must declare his innocence. He 
will not lie — even to curry favour with the Almighty. Hence 
the protest which he addresses to God. The right of the crea- 
ture must be affirmed even if the affirmation seems to be a de- 
fiance of the Creator.^ 

It is clear that the friends with their stiff dogmatism cannot 

1 Job, 92-5. 

^ Read chapters 10 and 13. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 369 

comprehend this state of mind. The words of Job are to them 
blasphemy, and only strengthen the conviction that he is a mon- 
strous sinner — a hypocrite as well, because he insists that he is 
righteous. They reaffirm their doctrine with increasing heat, 
until at last they accuse him to his face of crimes for which there 
is no evidence outside the exigencies of their theory. More and 
more distinctly Job sees that there is no relief for him in their 
way of thinking. Their theology, which has also been his the- 
ology, is hopelessly bankrupt. But in proportion as he is driven 
from his theology he is driven back to God. He has no other 
refuge, and his heart tells him that there is a refuge here. God 
must be just — not in the sense in which the friends have declared, 
but in the sense in which the heart cries out for justice. This 
does not tell him why he is afflicted ; that is a mystery which 
he cannot solve. But somewhere, somehow, God will disprove 
the false charges brought against His servant. Long after his 
death, it may be, God will be his vindicator and will bring 
the true state of the case to light. With this he will be con- 
tent.^ 

The real solution of the problem is the state of peace attained 
by the believer through all this struggle. It is not an intellectual 
solution of the problem ; it is the experience of a soul. What 
the author shows us is a man thrown into the darkness of de- 
spair by God's inexplicable dealings with him. He loses his 
faith for the time being, but he comes through his doubts and 
finds his God again. In a way this is a justification of God's 
dealing with Job. But it is the destruction of the popular the- 
ology, and it is no solution of the problem of the universe. This 
the author goes on to prove by the mouth of Job himself. The 
fact that Job is able to rest upon God does not mean that the 
friends are right in their interpretation. The popular theology is 
false in asserting that this world is administered on the scheme 

^ The celebrated passage, Job, ig^^^^, is so overlaid with Christian asso- 
ciations that we find difficulty in apprehending its real meaning. The per- 
sistence with which, up to this point, Job has denied the reality of reward 
or punishment beyond the grave makes it certain that he does not suddenly 
adopt such a theory here. What Job actually says is this : his confidence 
in God gives assurance that his vindication will come, and that he will be 
permitted to know it. In the dark regions of Sheol a momentary vision 
may be vouchsafed him — this is the most that he can hope for, but with this 
he will be satisfied. 



370 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

of rewards and punishments. Observation of the facts about us 
shows not only that the righteous suffer but that the wicked pros- 
per. So far is it from being true that the wicked are snatched 
away by an untimely death, that we might put it just the other 
way — the wicked oppressors grow old in power. They grow in 
power and in wickedness, and when at last they are taken away 
it is by a painless death. The problem stands out much more 
boldly than Job had ever thought, until he turned his attention 
to the facts. And it is insoluble. To the question, " On what 
principles then is the world governed? " no answer can be given. 
This is our author's deliberate conclusion. Yet faith is not al- 
together taken away from us. As we look at the wonderful 
works of God in nature we see that perfect wisdom is at work. 
We can rest in the conclusion that He who is able to carry on 
such a wonderful scheme of things will also be able to give a 
reason for His dealings with men. His ways are unsearchable ; 
we may trust that they are true and right nevertheless.* 

It is doubtful whether this treatment of the problem of the 
divine government was understood by the contemporaries of the 
author. The book was too profound for the average mind — 
nor has it been adequately apprehended in any age. The epi- 
logue has probably saved it from perishing by neglect. The 
author's answer to the problem of history is one in which the 
believing mind could not rest. From the same circle of thought- 
ful minds, and at about the same time, came another answer in 
the brilliant and devout poem which we now read as the second 
part of the book of Isaiah. 

At the beginning of the exile the suffering of Israel could be 
accounted for on the ground that the people were punished for 
their sins. The longer the exile endured the more difficult it 
was to accept this explanation. Continued suffering would then 
imply that Israel was much worse than the Gentiles, for Israel was 
afflicted while they escaped. But this could not be seriously 
held. The author of the book of Job had abstracted the ques- 
tion from its particular national colouring and discussed it as an 
ethical question pure and simple, reaching a non liquet. The 
author of the poem which now engages our attention fixed his 

^ That this is the purpose of the chapters (38 and 39) which describe the 
wonders of nature must be manifest. The speeches of Elihu (32-37) are 
clearly a later insertion in the book and add nothing to the discussion. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 371 

eye on the concrete problem. Israel is personified by him, and 
is constantly before his mind. He is not content with one form 
of the figure. He realises that Israel may be represented by the 
half-rebuilt ruins of Jerusalem, and the still desolate cities of 
Judaii. These he addresses with words of encouragement and 
comfort — Zion is the forlorn and sorrowing wife of Yahweh 
mourning the absence of her husband ; and she is comforted 
by the promise of His speedy return. But Israel is also the 
nation which went into captivity, and which still in large part 
sojourns in the East. This Israel, in the author's view, has a 
great mission in the world. It is personified as the Servant of 
Yahweh, chosen by Him and called to the work of a prophet. 
This Servant, the most striking ideal figure of the Old Testament, 
is also comforted and encouraged. He is introduced speaking like 
a prophet, conscious of his high mission, reciting the word of 
His God. Israel the prophet of Yahweh to the nations — this is 
the author's solution of the problem of history.^ 

More fully than anyone who has preceded him, our author 
affirms Yahweh to be the only God, the God of the whole 
earth. With all the ardour of a passionate nature, this is de- 
clared again and again. Yahweh is the Creator of the ends of 
the earth ; He makes peace and creates evil ; He takes up the 
isles as a mote ; He spreads out the heavens as a canopy ; He 
marshals the constellations in their order, and for fear of Him 
every star keeps its appointed place in the ranks. ^ The gods of 
the nations are, on the other hand, nothing but idols. They are 
sticks and stones, behind which is no spiritual power of any kind. 
Scorn and contempt for these manufactured articles breathe 
in every passage where they are mentioned. The process by 

^ This is not the place to argue the complex critical problems which clus- 
ter around the great poem which we call Deutero-Isaiah (Is. 40-66). A 
whole library has been written on the subject, and the discussion is still 
going on. The reader will find the main points discussed in the recent com- 
mentaries on Isaiah, in the articles of the recent Bible Dictionaries and in 
various monographs, some of which will be cited below. My own view is 
that the work is by a single author, though not all written at one time. This 
author lived some time after the date of Cyrus, and the references to that king 
in 44 and 45 are later insertions. He lived, however, in the Persian period. 
The text has suffered some in transmission and must be cleared of some 
minori nterpolations. I am indebted to Professor C. C. Torrey for light on 
some points which were to me obscure. 

* Numerous references might be given — note especially chapter 40. 



372 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

which they come into being is enough to show their nothing- 
ness. Of the workmen in the idol shops it is said : 

" One helps the other, and says to his fellow : Be of good courage ! 
So the craftsman encourages the goldsmith ; he who smoothes with 

the hammer him who smites the anvil, 
Saying of the soldering : It is good ; and he fastens it with nails." * 

The absurdity of a god that must be nailed up in order not to 
topple over is patent ; and so is the folly of the man who takes a 
piece of timber, makes a fire with one half and shapes the other 
into an object of worship. Such gods are nothing — a stick of 
wood is a stick of wood and nothing more. Their nothingness 
is indicated further by their weakness — they cannot do anything, 
either good or bad. Yahweh, speaking by the mouth of his 
prophet, challenges them on this head — let them do something 
to show their power and men will believe in them. The chal- 
lenge results in a demonstration of their impotence. And the 
evidence thus given will be confirmed in the near future by the 
fate that will overtake them. The crisis is not far away in which 
Bel and Nebo will be involved in the ruin of their city. In the 
flight of their worshippers these gods will prove a hindrance 
rather than a help — loading down the jaded beasts which might 
more profitably carry something of use for their masters.^ 

Yahweh is the God of history. He knows the end from the 
beginning, directs the movements of the nations, works out His 
plans by means of them. This He shows by the fact that to 
His prophets He has revealed things to come. The diviners and 
astrologers, prophets of the false gods we may call them, have no 
knowledge of the signs of the times. Yahweh' s challenge to the 
other gods turns upon this. They are invited to tell how the 
former things were foretold, or else to announce what is still in 
the future. Yahweh by His movements throws all their supposed 
revelations into confusion.^ 

* Isaiah, 41 ^' '^. The verses have possibly been displaced from their original 
context ; cf. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, p. 299, and hi? edi- 
tion in Haupt, Sacred Books of the Old Testament. 

2 Ibid. , 46 ^"* . The contrast between Bel and Nebo who need to be car- 
ried and Yahweh who has carried His people from their birth will impress 
the most careless reader. 

^ Ibid., 41 2^-'', and notice the confusion of the Babylonian astrologers in 



J 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 3/3 

This God of history is in some peculiar sense the God of Is- 
rael His choice of Israel must be the key to history. As to 
the fact of the choice we are not left in doubt — it is affirmed again 
and again ; and it is set forth under figures familiar to us from 
our study of the older prophets, though it is nowhere so tenderly 
described as here. Yahweh is Israel's husband. Zion is com- 
pared to a forsaken wife, who despairs of being received again to 
the affections which she has forfeited. But she is assured that so 
far from being forgotten she is in perpetual remembrance — her 
walls are graven on the palms of His hands. In her little faith, 
she refuses to believe that the prey can be taken from the oppres- 
sor. In answer she is pointed to the incomparable power of her 
Lord and her Redeemer.^ 

The word which we translate Redeemer is a favourite word 
with our author to indicate the closeness of the bond between 
Yahweh and Israel.^ It denotes the next of kin upon whom in 
tribal society all social duties devolve. He is vindicator of jus- 
tice — when a man is slain the next of kin avenges him. He is 
helper in misfortune, nourishes in famine, redeems from captivity, 
takes upon him all the interests of his kinsman. Yahweh is Israel's 
next of kin. Redeemer, Vindicator, Helper. It follows that 
there is a coming salvation. Israel's redemption is nigh. His 
scattered ones will be brought back. Zion will be rebuilt in 
transcendent beauty. Her sons shall come from far and her 
daughters be nourished at her side. Yahweh Himself will head 
the returning train, leading them over the desert as the shepherd 
leads his flock. 

To what purpose then is all the suffering through which Israel 
has gone? This suffering is (as we have seen) more than was 
required by the divine justice. The author, in fact, is so bold as 
to say that Zion has received of Yahweh' s hand double for all 
her sins. It is in answer to this question that our author shows a 
profound philosophy as well as a living faith. God's choice of 
Israel is not for Israel's sake alone. The great future that opens 
out before him is a future for the whole earth. All nations are 
to receive the blessing of the knowledge of Yahweh, which hitherto 
has been confined to Israel. Distant peoples shall come to Israel 
with the conviction : '' Only in thee is God, and beside there is 

^ Note especially the beautiful passage, 49 ^* — 50 ^, 

' The Hebrew is go" el, for which we have no good equivalent in English. 



374 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

none, no Godhead at all." To Him every knee shall bow and 
every tongue shall swear. ^ This universality of the true religion 
is the end to be attained by Yahweh's choice of Israel, and 
Israel's suffering is incident to his mission to the nations. He 
suffers not only for his own sins, but for the sins of others. 

The theory of vicarious suffering is not so remote from ancient 
thought as it is from the thought of our own day — which, indeed, 
revolts from it. In a society where the clan is held responsible 
for the acts of each of its members it must often happen that the 
innocent suffer for the guilty. In any society the cases are not 
few where the guilt of one involves many in suffering. The 
solidarity of the social organism makes this inevitable. And the 
result is often to bring to view conspicuous instances of suffering 
on the part of those who are conspicuously innocent. The high- 
est instances of virtue are found where men voluntarily take upon 
themselves to suffer in order that others may be spared. Thus a 
Moses offers to be blotted out of the book of God, hoping there- 
by to secure the forgiveness of his people. So in the discharge 
of his mission many a prophet had undergone suffering in order 
to bring his people to a knowledge of the truth. 

Israel, now, is a prophet-nation standing to the nations in the 
same relation as that which exists between the individual prophet 
and his hearers. This is the reason for Yahweh's choice — the 
choice is a call to make Him known to all the world. Israel is 
introduced to us declaring this to be his mission : 

** Hearken ye far countries unto me, and listen ye distant 

peoples, 
Yahweh has called me from the womb, from my mother's 

lap has He celebrated my name ; 
He made my mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow of 

His hand He hid me ; 
He made me a polished shaft, in His quiver He stored me. 
He said to me : Thou art my servant, Israel, in whom I 

will glorify myself. 



But now Yahweh says — He who formed me from the 
womb to be a servant to Him : 

* Isaiah, 45 ^*' ^^' 2^' ^^ and notice the passages to be cited in the immediate 
sequel. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 375 

It is too light a thing to raise up the tribes of Jacob and 

to restore the preserved of Israel ; 
I set thee as a light of the nations, that my deliverance 

may go to the ends of the earth." ^ 

And as Israel avows this to be his mission so Yahweh testifies 
concerning His purposes : " Thou too shalt call nations that thou 
knovvest not and peoples that have not known thee shall run unto 
thee." ^ The substance of Israel's message is indicated where Yah- 
weh contrasts His people with the devotees of the false gods : 
'* You are my witnesses . . . that you may acknowledge 
and believe me and discern that I am He ; before me was no god 
formed, nor after me shall there be any." 

Where this is the work of the Servant it must be that persecu- 
tion and suffering will follow. The course of history is a con- 
flict between Yahweh and the other gods. The partisans of 
these will not spare His witness. So Israel realises as he describes 
his present oppression : 

*' The Lord Yahweh has given me the speech of the eloquent ; 
That I may know how to revive the weary ; 
In the morning He wakens my ear that I may hearken as His 

disciple 
And I have not been rebellious or turned back. 
My back I gave to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who 

plucked out the beard, 
I hid not my face from insult and spitting." * 

But the time is not far distant when the nations themselves will 
realise that the sufferer has suffered as the result of his faithfulness 
to his mission, and that therefore it was for their sake. This 
realisation passes over into the public confession of the vicarious- 

* Isaiahy 49 ^"*. I have abbreviated the passage so as to bring out the main 
thought. The passage is thoroughly discussed by Giesebrecht, Der Knecht 
Jahve's {i()02), p. 28 ff. 

* Ibid., 55 ^. The comparison of Israel to David, whose work was to unite 
the tribes in a single state, is well explained by Cheyne : " David's appointed 
work could only be effected by a witness or preacher of the truth, and this 
witness or preacher was to be (as this prophetic writer knows) the regener- 
ated people of Israel." — Isaiah (English translation) in Sacred Books of the 
Old Testament, p. 187. 

^ Ibid., 50*^. Compare Yahweh's own description of His servant in 
42 ^-* quoted below. 



37^ OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ness of his suffering. In the touching chapter which has been 
to countless generations a description of the suffering Saviour, ^ 
the nations are introduced avowing their discovery. That which 
had not been told them now they see, that which they had not 
heard they now perceive : 

" Who could believe the report which came to us ? 
And to whom was the arm of Yahweh revealed ? 

He grew up before us as a sapling ; ^ 

And like a sprout from dry soil. 

He had no beauty that we should look upon him, 

And no comeliness that we should delight in him. 

Despised was he and forsaken of men, 
A man of sorrows and acquainted with sickness ; 
Like one from whom men hide the face, 
Despised, and we esteemed him not. 

But it was our sicknesses that he bore 
And our sorrows he took upon himself, 
While we thought him stricken, 
Smitten of God and humiliated. 

But he was pierced for our rebellions, 

Crushed for our iniquities. 

The chastisement that brought us healing was on him, 

And recovery came to us through his wounds. 

All we like sheep had gone astray, 
We had turned every one to his own way, 
While Yahweh made to light upon him 
The guilt of us all." ' 

It cannot be that this self-sacrifice will be unnoticed by Yah- 
weh. There must be a future for this Servant of Yahweh — he 
shall see a seed, he shall prolong his days and the good pleasure 
of Yahweh shall prosper at his hands. His great mission will be 
accomplished, so that all nations will see the salvation of God. 

^ Chapter 53. The right to apply the description to Christ comes not from 
the minute details of prediction, but from the recognition of Him as the true 
fulfiller of Israel's prophetic mission. 

^ A sickly spindling plant is what is meant. 

* Isaiah, 53 ^"*. Cf. the discussion in Giesebrecht Knecht Jahve's. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 377 

And this glorious work presents itself in part as a conquest. The 
opposing powers will be crushed before the triumphant hero — 
Yahweh will rouse the mighty one from the East, will give peo- 
ples into his power and strike terror into kings.^ But more in 
accord with the prophet's ideal is the gentle work of persuasion 
by which the Word will be commended to all mankind. The 
messenger of Yahweh is not to strive or cry or make his voice 
heard in the streets : 

" A bruised reed he will not break 
Nor will he quench a dimly burning wick. 
Faithfully will he set forth righteousness ; 
He will not grow dim nor be crushed 
Till he have set righteousness in the earth. 
And for his instruction the far countries wait." * 

That the kingdom of God is to be advanced by gentle measures, 
that present humiliation is the gateway to future exaltation, that 
the true believer has a mission to comfort the lowly and to bind 
up the wounds of those who are afflicted — these are the abiding 
truths of rehgion which were put into enduring form by our 
writer. 

But the contrast between the ideal and the actual brings a 
sharp pain to such believers. Firm as the conviction may be 
that Israel is the chosen Servant of Yahweh destined to this 
great work, the present reahty forces itself upon the attention. 
In the midst of triumphant promise and even in the exulting ex- 
hortation to Zion to rise to her great mission, we find the com- 
plaint that the actual Israel falls far short of his calling. Not 
only is it a people robbed and plundered, it is a people wilfully 
blind and deaf. They have not sought Yahweh with their whole 
heart — rather have they burdened Him with their iniquities. 
Within the community there is a sharp distinction between those 
who serve God and those who forget Him. The official class (it 
is the old complaint of the prophets) who ought to be the pro- 
tectors and watchmen of the people are unfaithful to their duty — 

^Isaiah, 41 ^~*. That Israel is intended is plain from v.'^, where Israel is 
promised that he shall be a powerful threshing-sledge to crush down all op- 
position. As the tradition arose which made Cyrus the foster-father of the 
restoration, the passage was applied to him, and finally his name was in- 
serted in 44^®, 45 ^. 

^/did., 42, i-*and cf. 61^-*. 



37^ OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

dumb dogs that do not protect the flock. ^ As in the picture 
drawn by Malachi, the righteous are poor, and the victims of 
rapacious nobles. So we find it again in the time of Nehemiah. 
The present author finds a consolation in their early death; they 
are taken away from the wickedness of the time. 

And, as we are told also by Malachi, a considerable section of 
the people is still devoted to idols. The secret cults which 
flourished in the last days of Jerusalem (Ezekiel is the witness) 
have vegetated on among the people of the district. It is not 
the gods of Babylon or newer oriental deities that seduce their 
allegiance, but they anoint themselves for the Moloch (Me/ecA, 
the king) whom their ancestors identified with Yahweh. They 
spread a table for Fortune and pour libations to Destiny — 
ancient divinities of Syria. They tarry in sepulchral chambers 
and lodge in secret places to perform rites of worship to the de- 
ceased, and to receive revelations from them in dreams. The 
ancient high-places retained something of their sanctity and at 
one of them (Gerizim possibly) men were planning to build a 
temple to rival that on Zion. All this arouses the scorn of our 
prophet and he denounces it in no measured terms.^ 

Nor was all well even with those who had not erred in this 
way. The ritualistic tendency to externalism was showing 
itself among those who were zealous for Yahweh. These were 
rehgious after their fashion — they bowed themselves low at the 
customary fasts, and put on sackcloth and ashes ; they mortified 
themselves, perhaps even to castigation. But our prophet points 
out that this is not rehgion. " Is not this the fast that I choose, 
says Yahweh : To loose the fetters of" injustice ; to untie the 
bonds of violence ; to set at liberty those who are crushed ; to 
break asunder every yoke ? Is it not to break thy bread to the 
hungry and to bring the homeless into thy house ; when thou 
seest the naked to cover him and not to hide thyself from thine 
own flesh ?" ' And with this spiritual conception of rehgion 

1 Isaiah, 56^. The present tendency to ascribe Isaiah, 56-66 to a Trito- 
Isaiah is illustrated by Duhm in his commentary, Cheynei n his Introduction 
and in his text {Sacred Books of the Old Testament). Cf. also Gressmann, 
Ueher die in Jes. j6-66 vorausgesetzten Zeitgeschl. Verhdltnisse (1899), and 
Littmann, Ueber die Abfassingszeit des Tritojesaia {i^x^q). 

2 Notice 56 3-12 where the language is in part borrowed from the older 
prophets ; also 65 l-l^ 66 i"*. 

' Isaiah, 58 ^ '. I have followed Cheyne's translation with slight variations 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 3/9 

goes a welcome to those outside the family of Israel who wish to 
join the communion of believers: ''As for the strangers who 
join themselves to Yahweh to serve Him and to love His name, 
every one that keeps the Sabbath and takes fast hold of my cov- 
enant, I will bring them to my sacred mountain and will make 
them rejoice in my house of prayer ; their offerings and their 
sacrifices shall be accepted on my altar — for my house shall be 
called a house of prayer for all nations." ^ 

And so we come back to the vision of the universal reign of 
Yahweh. But this does not come by the efforts of men. Yahweh 
Himself must come and redeem His people. He has looked for 
human instruments but has not found them. Now He will 
intervene in His own person. The prophet has a vision which 
has become part of the apocalyptic expectation for later times. 
In it he sees Yahweh in blood-stained garments marching tri- 
umphantly over all who oppose, treading them as the vintner 
treads the grapes ; the day of vengeance is in His heart and 
the day of redemption has come.^ But to do the writer jus- 
tice we must add to this warlike picture the splendid de- 
scription of the renewed Jerusalem. In language which the 
New Testament has adopted and passed on to the ages, the 
prophet exhorts the renewed and purified Zion to clothe herself 
like a bride on the wedding day. Instead of being forsaken and 
desolate, Jerusalem is to become the metroi^olis of the world. 
Yahweh will take up His residence in her, and His presence will 
enable her to dispense with sun and moon. The people are to 
become all righteous and the reign of God on earth is to begin.' 

A close parallel to this vision is found in a passage now ap- 
pended to the earlier collection of Isaiah's prophecies.* Here 
we find the bitterness which the postexilic Jewish community 
felt toward Edom expressed without reserve. The vengeance 

1 Isaiah, 56 ^-'^ ; cf. 66 23; "all flesh shall come to worship before me, 
says Yahweh." 

2 Ibid. , 63 ^-*. It does not appear why the redeemer should come from 
Edom, and the text of v.^ should probably be corrected with Lagarde and 
Duhm so as to read : Who is this who comes in red apparel with garments 
stained like the vintner ? 

2 Chapter 61. The identity of the point of view in these chapters and 
in chapters 40-55 is evident. It is unnecessary therefore to posit a Trito- 
Isaiah ; but it is necessary to bring the whole composition to the later date. 

* Isaiah, 34 and 35. 



38o OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

which Yahweh is about to take upon all nations will find its 
chief object in Edom : '' For Yahweh has a sacrifice in Bozrah, 
and a great slaughter in the land of Edom." After this day of 
reprisal for Zion, the land of Edom will become a desert in- 
habited only by jackals, ostriches, and hyenas. In contrast with 
this will be the lot of Israel, whose waste lands shall be made to 
blossom like the rose. To this land of Israel a way will be 
opened on which the unclean shall not walk : 

" No lion shall be there, 

No violent beast shall come up thither ; 
But thereon the redeemed will walk 
And Yahweh's freed ones will return. 

They will come to Zion with exultation 
And with everlasting joy upon their head ; 
Gladness and joy will overtake them, 
Sorrow and sighing will flee away." 

The similarity to what has been quoted above will be evident. 
And the fact most prominent in the thought of both authors is 
the scattered condition of the people of Yahweh. Their hope 
for the future is hope of a restoration. Jerusalem is to become 
the centre to which the sons of Judah will return from the far 
lands. 

The true significance of postexilic Israel is seen in the hopes that 
it cherished. It was remarked above that the history of the nation 
would have come to an end at the fall of Jerusalem had it not 
J)een for the little band of exiles in Babylon. ^ Since then we 
have considered the story of the return and have found no evi- 
dence that any large number of Babylonian Jews came back to 
Judah. It might seem, in view of this fact, as though we had 
overrated the importance of the exiles. But this is not the case. 
All the evidence goes to show that the moral strength of the 
people was sustained by the Babylonian Jews. After more than 
a hundred years of Persian domination there was, indeed, a little 
community clustered about the Temple on Zion. But they were 
poor, disheartened, the prey of designing neighbours, and divided 
among themselves. Even the few who had learned that Yahweh 
makes His home with the humble and contrite were upheld, 
more than they realised, by the assurance that Yahweh had a 
'Above, p. 299. 



THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 381 

people in the far East, that He was keeping them separate from 
the Gentiles, and that in His own time He would bring them 
back with joy and gladness. In this faith they felt themselves 
one with those distant brothers. The faith and the sense of unity 
was kept alive by messages and tokens of affection. Although 
there had been no general return, we know that as early as the 
time of Zechariah a few pilgrims had come with offerings of gold 
and silver for the sanctuary. As the community of Jews in 
Babylon throve we must suppose that such offerings became more 
frequent. The whole influence of Ezekiel had been in favour of 
the Temple. His pupils must have kept alive his ideal of holi- 
ness and of devotion to the sacred House. No doubt the situa- 
tion in Judah was bad enough. Very few of the people there 
strove after the ideals which the exiles had at heart. Even idola- 
try had not been overcome — it is one of our traditional errors to 
suppose that the exile or the people's experience of misfortune 
crushed it out. But with all her faults, Jerusalem was still the 
home of the exile's yearning. He would rather let his right 
hand lose its cunning than forget Jerusalem his chief joy. It is 
this affection for Jerusalem which gave Judaism its coherence and 
strength during the centuries when the people were scattered 
over the face of the earth. And the consciousness that their 
city was the object of so much aff'ection kept up the courage of 
the little remnant which lived in Palestine, and enabled them to 
endure when otherwise (humanly speaking) they must have 
succumbed. 

Whether the moral support would have sufficed to keep the 
idealism alive for an indefinite period we are not called upon to 
decide. At this juncture there arose in the East a clear-headed 
man, who saw that practical measures were called for to strength- 
en the beloved city and who had the energy to carry out such 
measures. 



CHAPTER XVII 

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 

The interest with which thoughtful Jews in exile followed the 
fortunes of the mother city is revealed to us in the memoirs of 
Nehemiah. This man, with the facihty and talent which the 
Jews have always shown, made himself useful in the court of Per- 
sia. He held the office of butler to Artaxerxes, whom we sup- 
pose to be the second of the name/ 

In the twentieth year of this monarch's reign (b.c. 385), cer- 
tain Jews who had made a visit to Jerusalem returned to Susa. 
Possibly they were a delegation sent from the East to report on 
the actual condition of the city. They reported to Nehemiah 
concerning the remnant who were left of the captivity. The lan- 
guage indicates Nehemiah's view that the people in Judah were 
the survivors of Nebuchadrezzar's deportation, and not exiles or 
descendants of exiles.^ Their condition is described as forlorn 
enough — the walls of the city are in ruins, and the people are in 
humiliation and disgrace, evidently because they are defenceless 
against the attacks of their lawless neighbours. In distress at 
what he hears, Nehemiah pours out his soul in confession to 
God. He sees in the exile a fulfilment of the threats of Deuter- 
onomy, and pleads with God to remember also the promise : 
"If you keep my commandments and do them, though you be 
scattered to the end of the heavens yet I will gather you thence 

' There is as yet no agreement among the historians as to the Artaxerxes 
of our text. Heretofore he has been supposed to be Artaxerxes I, Longi- 
manus, but the present tendency is to identify him with Artaxerxes 11, Mne- 
mon (B.C. 404-361). So Marquart, Fundamente Israel, iind Jiid. Geschichte, 
p. 31, and Torrey, Composition of Ezra- Nehemiah, p. 65. A sketch of the 
reign of Artaxerxes II is given by Justi, Geschichte des Alten Fersiens, pp. 
129-137. He was a man of weak character, easily influenced by his family 
and his dependants. 

^ Various attempts have been made to explain away the plain sense of the 
words (Neh. i '^). Their force is overwhelming when we consider that they 
were written by Nehemiah himself. 

382 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 383 

and bring you to the place where I chose to make my name 
dwell." ^ 

Nehemiah was a practical man, and it did not take long for 
him to resolve on action — possibly a long-cherished hope now 
became a resolve. When a convenient opportunity came he 
presented his petition to the king. It was nothing less than that 
the king would send him to the city of the sepulchres of his fathers 
to rebuild it. The appeal to natural piety in that phrase, *' city 
of the sepulchres of his fathers," touches us at once and we do 
not wonder that it reached the king's heart. He appointed Ne- 
hemiah pasha of Jerusalem, and gave him the customary body- 
guard.^ Whether he was supported at court by a Jewish party 
does not appear. It is not unlikely that the Jews of the East, 
who still thought of themselves as the true Israel, were planning 
a Zionist movement which would revive their depressed nation, 
and give it a more worthy home in the ancestral territory. In 
their life among Gentiles, they had learned to lay stress upon 
purity of blood. What they learned of their compatriots in Pal- 
estine showed a regrettable laxity in this respect. Nehemiah 
may well have been the pioneer of a movement to correct this 
abuse as well as to give the commonwealth more consistency. 

By favour of his monarch Nehemiah was civil governor of the 
district, and this gave him an advantage which he used to the ut- 
most. Without it he would have failed in his object, for he 
found himself opposed by a powerful party from the time of his 
arrival. Recalling what has already been said about the situa- 
tion in Palestine we can easily understand this. Party Hnes were 
already drawn. There was a stricter and there was a laxer view 
of spiritual (which included temporal) things, and the adherents 
of one view looked upon the adherents of the other with suspicion. 
One sect was intent upon religion, the observance of the Law, 
the Messianic hope. Its members were mostly among the lowly. 
They were opposed and perhaps derided by the more worldly 
minded, the wealthy, the nobles, who wished to develop trade 

' Neh. I ^. That the language is the language of Deuteronomy needs no 
demonstration. It is almost superfluous to point out that the prayer betrays 
no knowledge of a partial fulfilment of the promise, either under Cyrus or 
under the lead of Ezra. 

' Whether he also received letters to the governors of " Beyond-the-river " 
with requisitions for timber as is stated in the present text is doubtful ; cf. 
Torrey, Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 36. 



384 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

and to keep on good terms with their neighbours. Of this party 
Nehemiah has some knowledge — at least he supposes them to be 
ill-affected from the start. Their leaders were Sanballat, a Ho- 
ronite — Sheikh of the town or district of Beth-horon, ^ we may- 
suppose — Geshem an Arabian and Tobiah an Ammonite. All 
these men were worshippers of Yahweh and had claims to be re- 
garded as Israelite by blood. How Geshem got his name Arabian 
cannot now be made out. Tobiah is called the Ammonite slave. 
He seems to have been one of those domestic servants who so 
often in the East have come to the front by force of character or 
by unscrupulous devotion to their masters' interests. What 
aroused these men's anger was that one was come '' to seek the 
good of the Sons of Israel " — Nehemiah regards himself as cham- 
pion of the true Israel. If he were pioneer of a movement to re- 
establish the exiles in their old home, the power and prestige of 
these native leaders would be diminished if not destroyed. Hence 
their opposition, which made itself felt continuously from this 
time on. It should be remarked that these men seem to have 
lived on their own domains outside Jerusalem, and a natural re- 
luctance to have the city again overshadow the country may have 
reinforced their party feeling. 

Nehemiah found some officials in the city and they received him 
with due respect, though at first he was silent concerning the main 
object of his visit. Three days after his arrival he inspected the 
walls, riding out at night that he might be undisturbed. Begin- 
ning at the Valley Gate (perhaps near the present Jaffa Gate) he 
turned to the left and followed the line of the wall to the Kedron 
valley. At this point the debris was so piled up that his riding 
animal could not go on. He went some distance farther on foot, 
then retraced his steps to the point from which he started. He 
does not tell us how complete the destruction was, nor how recent. 
Various hypotheses have been advanced concerning attacks upon 
Jerusalem in the Persian period. None of them seem to rest 
upon reliable evidence. We may suppose that the Chaldeans left 
considerable portions of the old walls intact. We know that 
Zechariah discouraged any attempt to rebuild them, on the ground 
that Jerusalem would be too extensive to be thus enclosed. What 
Nehemiah saw may have been the result of time and neglect. In 

' The two Beth-horons are still pointed out, about twelve miles northwest 
of Jerusalem. 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 385 

many places the original foundations would doubtless still be in 
good condition. 

Without delay Nehemiah called a council of the people and 
proposed the rebuilding of the wall, at the same time laying be- 
fore them his commission from the king. The majority agreed to 
the proposition, only the three leaders already mentioned opposed 
the scheme and suspected (or feigned to suspect) plans of rebell- 
ion against the Persian government. They were able to effect 
nothing, for Nehemiah held the king's commission. Moreover, 
the project was in itself reasonable. Why should a city with a 
history, the site of a famous sanctuary, the capital of a district^ 
be left exposed to the attacks of the Bedawin ? Probably Ne- 
hemiah had the right to call for labourers under the king's author- 
ity. If we may trust the list which has come down to us, the 
work was done not alone by the people of Jerusalem but by the 
people of the Judaite towns of the district.^ Even without re- 
lying upon the list implicitly, we may suppose that it represents 
the method in which the work went on. Certain villages, or 
guilds, or powerful families were made responsible for certain 
sections of the wall, while Nehemiah took the oversight of the 
whole. 

The opposers at first contented themselves with scoffing. San- 
ballat asked whether the builders would ever be able to finish ; 
Tobiah remarked that the slight structure they were raising would 
not keep out a fox. The relations of the two parties were such 
that the sneers were reported at once to Nehemiah, who replied 
with vigorous curses. The heart of the people was in the work, 
however, and the wall soon showed the effect, the breaches being 
filled up, and the line made continuous to half the height in- 
tended. When it got so far, and showed signs of becoming an 
effective protection to the city, more vigorous opposition was 
planned. The enemies thought of making an attack in force. 
We can hardly suppose serious warfare contemplated. More 
likely there was to be only a sudden rush to throw the builders 
into confusion and in the confusion to throw down some of the 
new structure. 

* Unfortunately the detailed list in Neh. 3 shows such distinct marks of 
the Chronicler's style that we must view its historicity with suspicion (so 
Torrey, /. c, p. 37 f.). It is, in fact, difficult to see why Nehemiah, in record- 
ing the incidents of his own life, should insert a long catalogue like this. 



386 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

But Nehemiah was equal to every emergency. The enemies' 
plans were reported to him, probably losing nothing in carrying. 
In the interest of peace, faint-hearted or lukewarm workers 
begged their brethren to cease working. But the leader was not 
to be discouraged. He dropped work only long enough to make 
his army of labourers an army of soldiers. He mustered them 
by their natural divisions of clans and armed them with swords, 
bows, and spears. He had a body-guard who were accustomed 
to the use of arms. The report of his measures of defence was 
enough to daunt the enemy, and the main work was resumed 
with vigour.^ In order to guard against surprise, however, the 
workmen kept their weapons at hand, the leaders slept on their 
arms, a regular watch was set and the body-guard was kept on 
the alert. Nehemiah himself was on the wall constantly and 
kept the trumpeter by him so as to rally the whole force to any 
point where it might become necessary to repel attack. 

These measures effectually prevented an attack from without. 
But a new and threatening complication arose from within. The 
work on the wall was done largely by the common people, who 
seem to have responded willingly to the call of the governor. 
But they worked without pay, and soon exhausted their own 
slender resources. The oriental peasant is frequently heavily in 
debt, borrowing money at exorbitant rates to pay his taxes, or to 
tide him over a bad year. The Jewish cultivators had done this, 
mortgaging their fields and houses, some of them pledging their 
children. The season was a bad one, if we may judge by their 
allusion to the famine. The work on the wall brought things to 
a crisis. The debts must be paid, the mortgages were about to be 
foreclosed ; the children were in some cases already delivered over 
to the creditors. We cannot wonder that this seemed a hard return 
for their meritorious and self-denying work on behalf of their city, 
or that the complaints soon became loud enough to reach the ears 
of Nehemiah. The governor was equal to the occasion. He called 
the nobles together and rebuked them for their oppression of their 

^ The text of Neh. 4 ^ ^* is not altogether sound, but the sense may be re- 
stored with some probability — the threat of attack is met with a fine show 
of resistance. It should be noted that the division of chapters in the Eng- 
lish Bible differs from that in the Hebrew by six verses : 3 ^^-^^ of the He- 
brew is 4 ^-* of the English, and of course 4 ^"^^ of the Hebrew is 4 ''-^^ of 
the English. I cite according to the Hebrew text. 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 387 

poorer brethren. He and like-minded men in the distant East 
(he says) had been accustomed to ransom those of their own 
blood who had been sold into slavery. Now these oppressors 
were doing just the contrary — selling their debtors, though Jews 
like themselves, into slavery to the Gentiles. Nehemiah himself 
had loaned money and corn to these poor people. This fact gives 
force to his proposition that the debts should be remitted. Backed 
by his strong personality the appeal was effectual, the debts were 
remitted, and under solemn oath the creditors restored the pledges 
in their hands. The crisis was thus successfully met. ^ 

The governor takes occasion by this incident to set before us 
his method of life. He made no use of his right to levy a tax on the 
people for his own support. The former pashas had exacted forty 
shekels a day in table allowance, and their retainers had been al- 
lowed in oriental fashion to make requisitions for themselves. All 
this was now stopped. Nehemiah drew upon his private fortune 
for his personal expenses, and from the same source kept a public 
table for the nobles and guests. He provided thus regularly for 
at least a hundred and fifty persons. His body-guard instead of 
being a burden on the people was made a help, by being put at 
work upon the wall. All this is told us with a refreshing sim- 
plicity : the man was doubtless conscious of his own merits. But 
then the merits were there, and the limitations of the man do 
not interfere with our admiration. His generous and decided 
action must have put fresh life into his discouraged country- 
men. '^ 

As the work of the wall went on, the party of opposition con- 
tinued their activity. At one time they proposed to Nehemiah 
to come out to one of the villages to a conference. Why they 
thought he could be induced to confer with them we are not 
told. Nehemiah suspected a plot to kidnap him or to put him 
out of the way by violence. The work in which he was engaged re- 
quired his personal presence and he so informed them. As repeated 

* Neh. 5 *"^^. The amen of the people in v. ^^ is perhaps an embellish- 
ment by the Chronicler. A vivid touch is given the narrative by Nehemiah's 
shaking out the skirt of his robe to strengthen his imprecation. 

2 Neh. 5 '*~'^. The fact that Nehemiah and his servants did not buy real 
estate is counted among the merits. The meaning is probably that he re- 
frained from buying the properties sold under foreclosure. The temptation 
to speculate in real estate must have been considerable, especially when other 
buyers would hesitate to bid against the governor. 



388 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

verbal messages had no effect, they sent him a letter.^ In this docu- 
ment they charged in so many words that Nehemiah and his party 
were planning a revolt, which was to place him on the throne. 
Further, they claimed that he had suborned prophets to proclaim 
him king in Judah. There may have been colour to the charge 
to this extent : that light-headed enthusiasts were looking for the 
advent of the Messiah and were taking no pains to conceal their 
expectations. So important a move as rebuilding the city walls 
would almost inevitably stimulate such hopes. Nehemiah' s whole 
conduct acquits him of any part in this fanaticism. In reply to 
the letter he drily replies that Sanballat is putting forward the 
figment of his own brain. The conspirators had not yet ex- 
hausted their resources. They themselves suborned prophets to 
give deceitful advice to Nehemiah. This clique affected to be 
alarmed for Nehemiah' s safety, and proposed that he and his 
friends should take refuge in the Temple — the sanctuary could 
easily be made into a fortress. The right of asylum rested upon 
tradition, and may have been the basis upon which they urged 
their scheme. But to follow the advice would show cowardice 
or an evil conscience or both. If it had been followed, the en- 
trance into the Temple might be made the basis of a charge that 
Nehemiah already arrogated regal privileges. But the plot was 
too transparent and it failed. Nehemiah seems to have been 
guided by religious principle, holding that a layman had no right 
to enter the sanctuary.^ I have spoken of a clique because sev- 
eral persons were concerned in this plot — a prophetess named 
Noadiah is named as though she were especially active. 

None of these things hindered the work, and the wall was 
completed in fifty-two days.^ The opposers were astonished and 

^ The letter was without a seal, which would be regarded as insulting. So, 
in fact, Nehemiah interpreted it. If the senders were intending to conciliate 
him they would not have offered an insult, and on this account the omission 
of the seal has been taken to be an intimation that the contents of the letter 
were public property. It is easier to suppose the senders simply careless 
about forms. 

^Neh. 6 ^"^^ Commentators have puzzled themselves to explain why 
Nehemiah should visit Shemaiah who gave this advice. Probably Shemaiah 
had sent for him, pleading matters of importance and his own (ritual) inabil- 
ity to come to Nehemiah. 

^ This is the assertion of our Hebrew text, Neh. 6 '^. Josephus gives two 
years and four months (Ant., XI, 5, 8), which seems more reasonable; and 
which is defended by Sir Henry Howorth {Proc. Soc. Bib. Arch., XXV, 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 389 

put to shame. But their activity was not checked, for we learn 
that the correspondence between them and their adherents in 
Jerusalem became more frequent. The intimacy is explained by 
the fact that Tobiah was connected by marriage with leading 
priestly families. But the correspondence seems to have effected 
nothing. For the time being, Nehemiah had triumphed. He 
took measures to secure police protection for the new gates, and 
(we may suppose) strengthened his party by some sort of organi- 
sation. Unfortunately his memoirs break off here, and we are 
in the dark as to his succeeding history. Our present text tells 
us that his term of office extended over twelve years. But we 
can hardly suppose him to have stayed away from the court so 
long.^ The account of his second visit is from the hand of the 
Chronicler and cannot be relied upon.^ Whatever the facts, we 
can see that this work of Nehemiah gave a mighty impulse to 
the stricter Judaism. The party of the pious who had been 
depressed was strengthened and encouraged. They began to 
draw the lines between themselves and their laxer neighbours 
more sharply. The work of codifying and enriching the Law 
was taken up afresh. In fact, the period which began with Nehe- 
miah's visit was the formative period for the Judaism which we 
find dominant in New Testament times. 

The rise of Judaism was, of course, a gradual process. The 
foundations were laid by Ezekiel. But Ezekiel's ideas had not 
been at once assimilated — probably they were more effective 
among the Dispersed than in Palestine. Among the Gentiles the 
policy of religious separatism was essential. In Palestine, as we 
have seen, it made its way slowly. Nehemiah was one of those 
positive characters about whom popular parties rally. He was 
no compromiser, and he made the situation plain to those who 
were already inclined to regard themselves as the true Israel. 
From his time the stricter Jews began to regard their adversaries 
as the '^ people of the land " against which their earlier lawgivers 
warned them. The more liberal ideas of Deutero-Isaiah gave way 

p. 18 f.). But until we know more about Josephus's sources, it seems unsafe 
to rely upon any statement of his. 

^ Neh. 5 ^* claims that for twelve years Nehemiah did not eat the bread of 
the pasha. But his agreement with the king was for only a limited furlough 
— t7vo years would be as long as he could be spared from his place. 

2 Neh. 13 is the work of the Chronicler as is shown by Torrey, Compo- 
sition, p. 44 ff. 



390 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

before the practical exigency. Emphasis was laid upon purity 
of blood and upon observance of the Law. In the course of a 
century or so after Nehemiah the process was complete. Of its 
details we are ignorant. 

We have, however, a tradition which deserves our considera- 
tion. It comes from the hand of the Chronicler, and must be 
received, like all his narrative, as a picture of what he thought 
must have taken place rather than a picture of what actually did 
take place. Its hero is Ezra, a priest and scribe — eponym, one 
might almost say, of the powerful guild which influenced the 
whole history of Judaism. The story is as follows : ^ After the 
completion of the Temple, Ezra, a lineal descendant of Aaron and 
skilful scribe of the Law of Moses, went up to Jerusalem. The 
Temple having been completed, it was time to reintroduce the 
observance of the Law. It was in the seventh year of Artax- 
erxes^ that this man went up to Jerusalem with a considerable 
train of returning exiles. He carried with him a firman from 
Artaxerxes whose tenor is so remarkable that I reproduce it in full : 

" Artaxerxes, King of Kings, to Ezra the priest, Scribe of 
the Law of the God of Heaven t Greeting, 

" To proceed : I have made a decree that anyone of the peo- 
ple of Israel or priests or Levites, in my kingdom, who is will- 
ing to go to Jerusalem shall go with thee ; because thou art 
sent by the King and his seven Counsellors to hold an inquisi- 
tion concerning Judah and Jerusalem with the Law of thy 
God which is in thy hand ; and to bring the silver and gold 
which the King and his Counsellors have offered freely to 
the God of Israel whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, with all the 
silver and gold which thou shalt receive in the whole province 
of Babylon, with the contribution of the people and priests 
who contribute for the house of their God in Jerusalem. 
Therefore thou shalt punctually buy with this money oxen, 
rams, and lambs, meal offerings also and libations belonging 
thereto, and offer them on the altar of the house of your 
God which is in Jerusalem. And whatever shall seem good 
to thee and thy brethren to do with the rest of the silver and 
gold, so do according to the good pleasure of your God. And 
the vessels given thee for the service of the house of thy God, 
deliver before God in Jerusalem. Whatever else is needed 

* I follow the able analysis of Professor Torrey, Composition and Histori- 
cal Value of Ezra- Nehemiah. 

* Doubtless the patron of Nehemiah is the king intended by the narrator. 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 391 

for the house of thy God, let that be paid from the King's 
treasury. And the command is given by me, Artaxerxes the 
King, to all the treasurers of the province [called] Beyond-the- 
river to this effect : All that Ezra the priest, the scribe of the 
Law of the God of Heaven, shall ask you, let it be done at 
once — up to a hundred talents of silver, to a hundred cors of 
wheat, a hundred baths of wine, a hundred baths of oil, and 
salt in any amount. All the will of the God of Heaven must 
be diligently performed for the house of the God of Heaven 
— why should His wrath fall upon the kingdom of the King 
and his sons ? And be it known to you ^ that it is not al- 
lowed to lay tax, tribute, or toll on any priest, Levite, singer, 
doorkeeper, temple-servant, or workman of this sanctuary. 
And thou, Ezra, according to the wisdom of thy God which 
is in thy hand, appoint Judges and Justices to judge all the peo- 
ple beyond the river, all such as know the commandments of 
thy God ; and such as do not know you shall instruct. And 
whoever does not obey the Law of thy God and the law of 
the King, let strict justice be done upon him — either death or 
banishment or fine or imprisonment."^ 

It would seem superfluous to criticise this document had not 
its genuineness been strenuously upheld of late years even by some 
critical scholars.^ Inscriptions of Persian kings in favour of cer- 
tain temples are brought forward as parallel. These, however, 
on examination prove to be anything but parallel. In one case 
the servants of a temple are protected from the requisition of 
forced labour and the Persian officials are forbidden to annoy 
them by such requisitions, and this on the specific ground that 
the divinity had given a truthful oracle to an earlier Persian 
monarch. In the other case an ancient right of asylum is simply 
confirmed.* In contrast with these modest advantages consider 
the enormous powers conferred upon Ezra. He is to proceed to 
Jerusalem and make inquisition concerning the observance of the 

^The address here changes from Ezra to the governors and tax-gatherers 
but without naming them. 

2 Ezra, 7 12-26. 

' Especially by Meyer, Entstehting des Jiidentiims, p. 6o ff. , who accounts 
for the strong Jewish colouring of the decree by supposing it was drawn up 
by Ezra and his friends at court and submitted to the king, who good- 
naturedly signed it. Whether a decree in Council would be so lightly dis- 
posed of is doubtful. Cf. also Marquart, Fundamente, p. 37 f. 

* The Gadatas inscription is given by Meyer in his Entstehung, p. igf.; 
the Tralles inscription by the same author in his Forschungen, II, p. 497. 



392 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Law. He is to appoint judges to administer this Law. Such as 
are not fully acquainted with it are to be instructed in it. Ac- 
cording to the wording of the decree this new code is to be en- 
forced throughout the whole of Syria. We may charitably sup- 
pose that the author of the decree intended it to apply only to 
Jewish settlers in Syria. In a royal decree, however, one ex- 
pects a more precise definition of the persons affected. In addi- 
tion, the ministers of the Temple, down to the most menial, are 
to be exempt, not only from forced labour, as in the Gadatas in- 
scription, but from tax, toll, and tribute of any kind. Enormous 
sums of money are put at Ezra's disposition for the benefit of the 
Temple.^ The position of Ezra, in possession of this decree, is 
comparable only to that of Solomon — with the advantage that 
Ezra had no foreign wars to fear, the peace being secured by the 
Persian power. In fact it is difficult to consider seriously the 
claim that this decree was ever issued. All the objections urged 
above against the decree of Cyrus apply here with tenfold force. 

But let us return to the Chronicler's picture of Ezra and his 
times. The great scribe is now introduced as writing his own 
memoirs. He carefully gives the genealogical status of the emi- 
grants who joined his train, to assure us that none but full-blooded 
Israelites were of the number. His care for the Temple service 
is shown by the fact that when no Levites appeared, he sent back 
to Casiphia and succeeded in enlisting over two hundred.^ The 
entire company numbered over seventeen hundred males. A cara- 
van of that size carrying the king'syfr;;?^;? would hardly be mo- 
lested on the journey, and it could require no great act of faith 
to forego the military escort offered by the king. 

The narrative goes on to state that the journey was safely made 
and that after three days, to allow for purification, those who had 
charge of the treasure delivered it safely at the Temple. Abun- 
dant sacrifices were offered and the returned exiles gave the royal 
mandate to the Persian officials and received the subventions 
therein indicated. The heads of the clans contributed liberally 

* Meyer does not find them exaggerated. But a million dollars in silver 
and two millions in gold will seem to most people a disproportionate amount 
for the object proposed. 

2 This includes the Nethinim or descendants of the slaves presented to the 
Temple by the kings of Judah. They are now classified with the Levites, 
though so different in origin. 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 393 

to the Temple treasury, the census of " those who came up at the 
first" was examined, then priests, Levites, and people took up 
their residence in their cities.^ 

Two months were allowed the immigrants to settle themselves 
in their homes ^ and then a popular assembly was called. There 
was to be no further delay in introducing the Law; its intro- 
duction being the great object of the journey. The Book was 
brought. Ezra stood upon a platform which had been raised for 
this occasion, opened the Book and pronounced a benediction, 
to which the people responded with an Amen. The reading 
began, the Levites giving their assistance. Exactly how the part 
of the Levites is to be conceived is not clear. The account tells 
how the people were affected with grief at the reading, how they 
were encouraged and directed to observe the day as a joyous 
festival. The next day the reading was resumed and they reached 
the passage which gives directions concerning the observance of 
the Feast of Booths, and proceeded at once to the observance of 
this festival. We are told that it had not been observed from 
the days of Joshua.' 

The auspicious beginning was followed by a revulsion ; where 
all had seemed so fair there was a secret blot. The first immi- 
grants, for these we must understand to be the guilty persons, 
had not kept their Israelite blood pure, but had intermarried with 
the people of the land. This discovery was a grief to Ezra, now 
the temporal and spiritual ruler of the community. When he 
heard of it he rent his clothes, tore his hair and beard, and sat 
on the ground deprived of speech. As evening approached he 
made confession of sin in a long prayer, the burden of which is 
the acknowledgment that intermarriage with the people of the 
land has been Israel's crying sin in the past, and that this sin 
still weighs upon them in the present. 

A great assembly gathered about the praying scribe (we still fol- 
low the narrative) and joined in lamentation as he made his con- 

* Professor Torrey makes Neh. 7'® the continuation of Ezra, 8^^ I think 
more likely 7* is the place to make the connexion. In this case Ezra in- 
spects the genealogy of those already in the land and enrolls them in the 
community of which he is lawgiver, before reading the Law to them. 

2 They had reached Jerusalem the first day of the fifth month (Ezra, 7 ^) ; 
the assembly was called in the seventh month (Neh. 7''^^. 

' Specific directions for the construction of booths are found only in 
Lev. 23*® — a part of the Holiness Code. 



394 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

fession. One of the leaders encouraged him boldly to take hold 
of the evil and to undertake a reform, promising that the people 
would make a solemn agreement to divorce the obnoxious wives 
and send them away with their children. Ezra therefore im- 
posed an oath on all the leaders that they would carry out this 
programme. Another solemn assembly was called and the greater 
excommunication was threatened against any who should not 
come. When the assembly met, Ezra made the demand that 
they put away all foreign wives. Some voices were raised in 
opposition, but the majority consented. In order that the matter 
might be certainly carried through, it was agreed to appoint a 
commission before which the offenders should come individually. 
The nobles and judges of the towns were to report to this com- 
mission. Every precaution was taken to make the action effec- 
tive. The commission was appointed and completed their work 
in three months. A list is given of those who were found guilty 
and who put away wives and children.* 

Three weeks later another solemn assembly is held.* The 
true Israel has now separated itself from strangers and is ready to 
renew the covenant. After a public reading of the Law, a sol- 
emn confession of sin is made, with a rehearsal of Yahweh's 
goodness in the past. This is followed by a solemn league and 
covenant signed by the leaders of the people and by the heads of 
the priesthood. They are supported by the whole assembly, who 
take upon themselves a solemn oath to obey the Law of God, 
specifying the particulars which they need especially to guard 
from negligence. First of all comes the vow not to intermarry 
with the Gentiles.^ Then is emphasised the observance of the 
Sabbaths and festivals by the refusal to trade with any on those 
days. With this goes the observance of the Sabbatical year. The 
support of the sanctuary by a poll-tax follows.* An apportionment 

* Ezra, 9 and lO. The consistency of the act from the legalistic view is 
praised by Whiston in his note to Josephus, Ant. XL, 5, 4. More modern 
readers are likely to condemn it as cruel, and as contrary to the true spirit 
of Israel's religion. 

^Following Torrey, I find Ezra, 10**, continued in Neh. g. 

^ The people of the land here spoken of are identified by the writer with the 
ancient Canaanites. In fact, they were only such as could not prove their 
pure Judaite blood. 

* A third of a shekel is the amount fixed — afterward raised to a half-shekel. 
This may have in mind the tax which Ezekiel allows the prince to levy for 
the sacrifices. 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 395 

for the supply of wood for the altar is next made by lot. Further 
specifications concern the first-fruits, firstlings, and tithes. The 
conclusion of the account sets forth the measures taken to re- 
populate Jerusalem, and gives more of those lists of which the 
Chronicler is so fond.^ 

We have already commented upon this author's idea of the ex- 
ile. He supposed the whole of Israel to have been carried away 
from their land. There were left in the country only the Samari- 
tans and some remains of the old Canaanitish population. He 
supposed that at the close of the exile the people returned in two 
sections. The first detachment came with Zerubbabel and after 
some delay succeeded in building the Temple. The second and 
more important caravan came with Ezra ; more important in the 
eyes of the narrator because they brought the ancient Law with 
them. Only with the adoption of the Law was the nation fully 
reconstituted. Both returns were accomplished by the wholly 
miraculous intervention of Yahweh, who moved upon the heart, 
first of Cyrus, then of Artaxerxes. 

That the picture is almost wholly drawn from the imagination 
of the author must be evident. The decree of Artaxerxes is a 
historic impossibility. It was much for a king to give Nehemiah 
the power which he actually exerted. But the explanation is 
ready at our hand — Nehemiah was a trusted personal servant of 
the king. But Ezra had no such claims to consideration. Ne- 
hemiah, moreover, received the governorship of a petty district, 
with power to accomplish a certain limited work. Ezra has regal 
authority and the disposition of the imperial treasury. It was much 
for Nehemiah to receive such a position from a Gentile king. 
For Ezra to receive so much more would have been a miracle 
indeed. Doubtless the favour of Artaxerxes toward Nehemiah 
suggested the idea of his decree for Ezra. The question remains : 
if Ezra had received his powers and prerogatives in the seventh 
year of Artaxerxes, why should Nehemiah need to make his jour- 
ney thirteen years later ? ^ 

This brings us to the most surprising fact of all. Neither 
Nehemiah nor Ezra knows anything of the other. Ezra makes 

^ The final chapter of Nehemiah, in which Nehemiah's memoirs seem to be 
resumed, is also apparently an invention of the Chronicler. 

2 1 assume (as seems clear from the narrative) that the same Artaxerxes is 
intended in the two cases. 



396 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

his journey first and accomplishes wonders ; but Nehemiah has 
no word for him and his work. Ezra describes the dedication of 
the wall, but is entirely silent as to its builder. One would think 
that the two men would work together and each give due honour 
to the other. If we had only the story of Ezra we should know 
nothing of Nehemiah^ — and the converse is also true. And as we 
look closer we see that Ezra cannot have done what he is said to 
have done before the coming of Nehemiah. Where in Ezra's time 
were all those turbulent nobles who were grieved that a man had 
come to seek the welfare of Israel ? Were they the men to cower 
before a scribe, when they plotted so persistently against the 
governor of Jerusalem ? They were certainly not the men tamely 
to accept the Law at Ezra's hands and to put away wives and 
children at his bidding. But they nowhere appear in the nar- 
rative, and this is only one of the inexplicable things in this 
inexplicable story. Yet, incomprehensible as it is if taken as 
history, so comprehensible is it if taken as an imaginative tra- 
dition. 

As has been pointed out by others, Ezra is unknown, not only 
to Nehemiah, but to Jesus ben Sira, who wrote in the early part 
of the second century B.C. In his catalogue of heroes of Israel 
he has a place for Nehemiah, but none for Ezra. In 2 Maccabees 
also it is Nehemiah, rather than Ezra, who collects the sacred 
books in a library. It is impossible to suppose that either of 
these writers would have passed over Ezra had he been known 
to them. 

What then is the historical fact which the story of Ezra repre- 
sents? It is this : During the century after Nehemiah the com- 
munity in Judah was becoming more rigid in its exclusiveness 
and in its devotion to the ritual. Ezra is the impersonation of 
both tendencies. Whether there was a scribe named Ezra is not 
a matter of great importance. Very likely there was such a 
scribe to whose name tradition attached itself. First it trans- 
ferred the favour of Artaxerxes to him from Nehemiah. Then it 
made him the hero of the introduction of the Law. And finally 
it attributed to him the abrogation of the mixed marriages. It 
is not unlikely that Nehemiah, after building the wall, induced 
the people to take upon themselves obligations such as are re- 

^ The bare occurrence of the name at the head of those who signed the 
covenant (Neh. 10 2) is only the exception that proves the rule. 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 397 

counted in the history.' The things emphasised there are such 
as the Babylonian Jews had most at heart — purity of blood, ob- 
servance of the Sabbath, and care for the Temple service. The 
signing of such a covenant would put the scribes in a position 
of advantage. To do them justice, these men were fully possessed 
by an idea — the idea that if the Law of God could be perfectly 
obeyed, Israel's future would be glorious. The Law which was 
to be obeyed was in their hands and they were its authoritative 
expounders. If only the Great King would give them power to 
enforce it, what might they not do for Israel's benefit ! The 
wish was father to the thought, and the thought gave rise to the 
story of Ezra. Ezra was the ideal scribe, as Solomon was the 
ideal king, projected upon the background of an earlier age. 

As soon as the observance of a complicated code becomes the 
most important thing in life the expounders of that code become 
the most important men in the community. The rise of the 
class of scribes is certainly one of the most important events of 
postexilic history. It was, in fact, a process rather than an event. 
It was complete by the time of the Chronicler. Several genera- 
tions of earnest and self-denying men must have wrought to 
secure the triumph of their order. That triumph is the logical 
result of Ezekiel's theory. The new Israel is no longer a nation ; 
it is a church whose whole reason for being is the sustentation 
of divine service, and the conservation of that holiness which is 
required for such service. The emphasis laid upon the interests 
of the priests and Levites is not because the scribes usually be- 
longed to this class. These interests are defended because priests 
and Levites are necessary to the carrying on of the Temple service. 

The ideal of holiness — that is, of complete separation from all 
that is not consecrated to Yahweh — is most plainly, we might 
say brutally, set before us in the account of the divorce of foreign 
wives. The seed of Israel must be kept pure from intermixture ; 
this wholly physical precaution is the Chronicler's interpretation 
of the injunction to be holy. In his zeal for purity of blood he 
puts the people of the land (most of them Israelite in blood) in 
the place of the Canaanites and Amorites of which history told 
him. This is no doubt the idea of Babylonian Judaism carried 

* In fact, Neh. lo may have been expanded from something in Nehe- 
miah's memoirs. It has often been remarked that the obligations of this 
covenant are not specifically those of the Priest-code. 



398 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

over into Palestine. It was natural for those who, m the time of 
Nehemiah and after, returned to the old home, to affiliate them- 
selves with the stricter party there. This party would readily 
count their opponents to be heathen. The separation became 
wider with time and culminated in the Samaritan schism. It 
was pictured in the Chronicler's mind as a divorce between faith- 
ful Jews and their Gentile wives. The cruelty of turning wife 
and child out of doors would be no reason why the Law should 
not be observed. But the logic of the scribe would certainly 
have failed to carry through a measure of the kind had the test 
been actually made. What the narrative means to do is to em- 
phasise the prohibition of intermarriage ; and since to refuse to 
take a Gentile wife is a very different thing from divorcing one 
who has acquired rights in the home, the prohibition prevailed, at 
least, among the stricter Jews. 

That it did not prevail without protest is made evident by one 
of the most delightful pieces of Hebrew literature that have come 
down to us — the book of Ruth. This is a powerful pamphlet on 
the side of the foreign wives. Ruth, the heroine, is a Moabitess, 
a member of the tribe which is specifically denied the rights of 
citizenship in Israel even after ten generations.^ This foreigner 
is taken to wife by a good Israelite — a native of Bethlehem. 
After her husband's death she does not regard herself as freed from 
the obligation to his people, but returns with her mother-in-law 
to the country of Judah. There she is married to the next of 
kin,^ v/ho is set before us as a model of piety, generosity, and 
chastity. The marriage is a source of blessing, not only to the 
parties concerned, but also to all Israel, for from this marriage 
came David, the great and pious king. The story is told with 
charming simplicity and freshness and its force as an argument 
is unmistakable. If in the old days Israel had acted on the 
principles of the exclusive party, Ruth and her son would have 
been excommunicated. Where then would have been the Judean 
monarchy? Where the organization of the priesthood ? Where 
the Temple itself? 

1 The regulation found in the Law (Deut. 23') means that if a Moabite 
becomes a settler (client) in Israel, his descendants shall never acquire full 
rights of citizenship. 

2 Or rather to the nearest kinsman of her husband who is willing to exer- 
cise his right. 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 399 

But the protest was ot no avail. The stricter party had a final 
answer in their steady reaffirmation of the principle : the holy 
seed must be kept pure. The Chronicler affirms that the rigid 
law, directed primarily against the Moabite and Ammonite, was 
extended so as to cover every case where mixed blood was sus- 
pected. One Eliashib, a prominent member of the priestly order, 
having authority in the Temple, gave storage to the effects of 
Tobiah — apparently the Ammonite who opposed Nehemiah.^ In 
connexion with the excommunication of the mixed multitude, 
these goods were summarily thrown out and the room was re- 
stored to its original use. It is evident that such measures must 
have involved also the banishment of Eliashib. 

It is possible that we have here a confused account of the Sa- 
maritan schism. Concerning this we have Josephus's narrative as 
follows : One Sanballat was appointed satrap of Samaria by 
Darius, the last king of Persia. He gave his daughter in mar- 
riage to Manasseh, brother of the Jewish high-priest. The elders 
of the Jews, however, were indignant at the marriage of one of 
priestly blood with a foreigner, and demanded that Manasseh 
should divorce her. He, supposing himself to be next in suc- 
cession to the high-priesthood (the highest dignity in Judea), 
told his father-in-law that though he loved his wife he was not 
willing on her account to be shut out from the high -priesthood. 
• On this representation Sanballat promised Manasseh that he 
would make him high-priest and governor in Samaria and would 
build him a temple on Mount Gerizim. Manasseh agreed to 
this, and on migrating to Samaria was joined by many priests 
and Levites who left Jerusalem because of the proscription of 
mixed marriages. So far Josephus.'^ 

The Sanballat of this account is doubtless the Horonite who 
gave Nehemiah so much trouble.^ It is not improbable that the 
quarrels between Nehemiah and the country party led to a defi- 
nite separation. In that case Josephus's date is not accurate. 
But what is quite certain is that the stringency of the Jews in 
Jerusalem in the matter of foreign alliances led to the formation 

^ The story (Neh. 13) is told as if by Nehemiah. But it is difficult to place 
it in his memoirs and the style is that of the Chronicler. 

^Josephus, Antiquities, XI, 8, i. 

'Neh. 13 '''^ gives Sanballat's connexion with Eliashib; a daughter ot San- 
ballat was married to one of Eliashib's grandsons. 



400 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

of the Samaritan community. Each party was sure that it was 
the true Israel and the people of Yahweh. When the Temple at 
Jerusalem was closed to all who could not prove their genealogy 
or who would not subscribe to the new regulations, those who were 
shut out were obliged to organise about another centre. Mount 
Gerizim naturally suggested itself. It was an ancient sanctuary, as 
is evident from the way it is treated in the book of Deuteronomy. 
As a sanctuary of Yahweh it could claim greater antiquity than 
the one at Jerusalem. There was no reason why this might not 
be a second Jerusalem with a Temple rivalling the other. So 
the schism became fixed and incurable, and the hatred of one 
sect for the other was as bitter as the hatred of brothers estranged 
usually is. But it must be remembered that the Samaritans were 
Jews to all intents and purposes.^ They even adopted the Law 
in the form in which it is recorded in the Pentateuch and ob- 
served its precepts, though rejecting the later Rabbinical refine- 
ments. 

What has been said about Ezra shows that the account given 
of the introduction of the Law by him belongs in the category 
of legend rather than fact. But the great historical fact remains 
that in this period the codification of ancient customs and regu- 
lations reached its conclusion.^ The result was the highly com- 
posite and perplexing work which we call the Pentateuch. Cer- 
tain elements of this book have already been considered. In its 
final form it included as part of itself the ancient Covenant Code, 
the patriarchal history which we have called J E, the enlarged 
book of Deuteronomy, and the Holiness Code, which shows the 
influence of Ezekiel. What is left after separating these earlier 
documents represents several stages of development. We have no 
difficulty in recognising one hand in the historical work which is 
usually assigned to a priestly writer,^ and which furnished the 
framework into which the earlier documents were fitted. Its 
peculiarities have already been considered in the early chapters 

^ Rabbinical recognition of the difference between Samaritans and heathen 
is pointed out by SchUrer, Gesch. d. Jiid. Volkes,^ II. p. lyf. 

^ Or at least reached a provisional conclusion. There can be no doubt 
that the process of legal development went on, and in principle there is no 
dividing line between the Tora and the Mishna. 

^And is therefore usually designated as P. It is not so certain as has 
been supposed, that the historical sketch was composed as an introduction 
to a code. 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 40I 

of the present history.^ We need only recall that P rewrote the 
narrative of the creation, the deluge, the patriarchs, the exodus, 
and the wandering, with the idea of displacing the earlier stories 
which were in many respects distasteful to him. In doing this 
his purpose is to give the correct view of God, who is to him 
spiritual and transcendental. He therefore avoids the anthropo- 
morphisms of his predecessors. He also desires to mark the 
stages of exclusion by which Israel came to be the true people of 
Yahweh. Beginning with the creation and passing rapidly to 
the Deluge he narrows his view to Abraham, and in the family 
of Abraham dismisses first Ishmael and then Esau, so as to con- 
fine his view to Jacob. That his picture of the patriarchs re- 
veals no sins on their part has already been remarked, as also 
that the result is to give us figures without life, and scenes with- 
out colour. That he emphasises genealogies and chronologies 
shows a tendency prominent in later Judaism, as is illustrated by 
the book of Chronicles. 

One thing interested the priestly writer, however, and that 
was the origin of Israel's institutions. The account of the crea- 
tion, as he gives it, culminates in the Sabbath. It is not so 
much that he thinks the Sabbath obligatory on all mankind (for 
he gives no command for its observance), as that he conceives of 
God Himself as obedient to the Law.'^ The Deluge culminates 
in a covenant with Noah, sealed by the rainbow, and embracing 
the prohibition of blood as food. Here w^e can have no doubt 
that the author enacts a law for all mankind. It is interesting to 
note that he does not cornmand sacrifice. Sacrifice was intro- 
duced (according to his theory) by the commands given at 
Sinai and w^as lawful only at the single sanctuary of Israel. 
Therefore he gives mankind permission to slay and eat, only for- 
bidding the use of the blood. With the prohibition of blood, 
he also supposes the death penalty for murder to have been in- 
troduced. In fact the institution of blood-revenge is one of 
the earliest of social customs. 

In the patriarchal period, the author thinks it worth while to 
dwell upon two incidents only. The first is the custom of circum- 
cision. This is solemnly enjoined as a seal of the covenant -with 
Abraham. The author probably knew of the observance of this 

^ Above, pp. II, 12, 31, 35. 

2 Parallels in the literature of later Judaism are well known. 



402 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

rite among what we may call the Abrahamic peoples. The second 
is the purchase of the cave of Machpelah by Abraham from the 
people of the land. It seems almost as if he were asserting 
Israel's right to the ancient burial-place of the patriarchs as 
against the Edomites, or at least as if he were asserting Israel's 
equal right with the Edomites. Among all the sacred places 
of the land outside Jerusalem, this is the only one in which the 
author has an interest. From his predecessors he takes the ac- 
count ot Yahweh's revelation of His name to Moses, and the in- 
stitution of the Passover at the exodus. In connexion with 
the latter he ordains the reform of the calendar.' His use of the 
miracles in Egypt has been already commented upon. The gift 
of manna, which is placed at the very beginning of the wander- 
ing, is made the occasion for emphasising anew the observance 
of the Sabbath. 

Most characteristic of this author is the elaborate provision 
made for the sanctuary. The idea that Yahweh dwelt among 
His people even in the wilderness is old. The earlier history 
speaks of the Tent of Meeting which Moses pitched outside the 
camp.'* Possibly the Ark was a still earlier provision for Yah- 
weh's journey. But the priestly writer was not content without 
making the Dwelling a worthy one, according to later ideas. 
It was not difficult to argue that the holiness of Yahweh should 
be guarded in the wilderness as strictly as it was afterward 
guarded in Jerusalem. Hence he makes Moses on the mount, 
first receive the command to make the Tabernacle, with elaborate 
specifications — ^just as Ezekiel began his reconstructed common- 
wealth with a plan of the new Temple. 

It would be sacrilegious to suppose that a more perfect plan 
could be devised for the Dwelling than the one revealed to Solo- 
mon and afterward substantially duplicated in the vision vouch- 
safed to Ezekiel. This plan therefore our author took and 
showed considerable ingenuity in making on its lines a movable 
instead of a stationary structure. The Tabernacle of his devis- 
ing is, in fact, the shadow of the Temple thrown upon the back- 
ground of the desert hfe. It has its inner chamber, the private 
apartment of the divinity. This is made of beams ingeniously 
fitted together to make a cubical room — the shape was that of 

^ This is really dating postexilic usage back to the time of Moses. 
»Ex. 33^-" (E), Num. ii i«, 12 ♦. 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 403 

the Most Holy in the Temple, only here the dimensions are half 
those of Solomon's building. Within this room the Ark is 
placed. In the description of this long-lost palladium it was 
easy to overlay it with gold, and for the two gigantic cherubim 
of Solomon to give it two small ones of gold overshadowing the 
cover. This central room being provided, it was only logical to 
make the anteroom with its table of bread and its candelabrum. 
Heavy curtains, the inner of fine texture, the outer of leather, 
cover the whole structure. Around all is a court fenced off by 
curtains stretched upon posts, to keep the area sacred from in- 
trusion. For the sacrificial worship a copper altar is provided, 
or rather, one of wood overlaid with metal.^ 

Such a sanctuary must be provided with a corps of attendants. 
For the priesthood (in the narrower sense) Aaron and his sons are 
chosen. Elaborate vestments are wrought for them. The first 
act of sacrificial service in the history of Israel — and so the first 
legitimate sacrifice in the history of the world — is the offering by 
which Moses consecrates them to the priesthood. Only after the 
provision of this elaborate sanctuary does Moses receive the two 
tables which are the sign of the covenant and which are to repose 
in the Ark. And only after the consecration of the priests is the 
ritual law given to the people.^ The first act of the newly con- 
secrated priests is to offer the sacrifice which makes the people 
ritually fit to approach God. But the danger of an unacceptable 
service is set before us by the fate of Nadab and Abihu, two of 
Aaron's sons. By an act of criminal carelessness they '^offered 
strange fire" in their censers and were smitten by a fire from 
Yahweh so that they died.^ The incident is made the occasion 
for regulating the manner of Aaron's entrance into the sanctuary.* 

Aaron and his sons having been consecrated, it is time to intro- 
duce the Levites, their subordinates and helpers. Our narrative 

' How far these devices would be practicable if the endeavour were made 
to use them as working directions is a question that did not much trouble the 
author and need not detain us. 

^ Recent commentators have shown that the account of the actual building 
of the Sanctuary (Ex. 35-40) is a very late insertion of the narrative. That 
we have several strata of P to deal with, is clear from the duplication of the 
command for Aaron's consecration (Ex. 2g, and Lev. 8). 

^Lev. 10 •-^. The only sin of the two men seems to have been that they 
took fire from somewhere else than the altar. 

^Ibid., 16, The chapter has been worked over more than once. 



404 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

therefore tells of the choice of the tribe of Levi for this purpose. 
They were substituted for the first-born males of Israel, to which 
Yahweh had a claim since the exodus/ The congregation is 
now prepared to take up its march and soon comes to the border 
of the promised land. Here the obstinacy of the people comes 
out in their refusal to invade the country. No sooner is this 
matter settled than a band of Levites headed by Korah claims 
priestly prerogatives and presumes to offer incense. In this act 
they are smitten by the avenging fire of Yahweh.^ Not long 
after this the congregation murmur again at Moses and Aaron, 
and these two leaders are betrayed into sinful impatience. This 
shows that they have reached the end of their usefulness. Aaron 
dies at Mount Hor after Eleazar has been inducted into his 
office.^ A few days later, when the border of Canaan is reached, 
Moses is directed to take a look at the Promised Land. At his 
request Joshua is appointed as his successor, being confirmed by 
Eleazar. Moses ascends Mount Nebo and there ends his career.* 
As we are here concerned with the formation of the Jewish 
book of the Law we may leave to one side questions concerning 
the conclusion of P's narrative. Undoubtedly the author went 
on to describe the conquest and division of the land. But the 
compiler of the book of Joshua did not make this narrative the 
basis of his work in the same way as did the compiler of the first 
five books. This editor took the history of P and made it the 
framework into which with commendable piety he fitted the 
other documents of which we have spoken. He, or his school, 
also supplemented the legislation already in their hands with 
such fragments of tradition as they could discover not yet pub- 
lished. These fragments preserve for us some ancient customs, 
so that we find united in this code institutions and observances 
representing all stages of Israel's religious development except 
the polytheistic. The interest of the final redactor, or school of 

^ Num. 3 ^-^^. The analysis in these early chapters of Numbers presents 
peculiar difficulties. I have followed, in the main, Carpenter and Battersby, 
The Hexateuch. 

2 Num. 19. The account of Korah is now fused with that of Dathan and 
Abiram. 

3 /^/fl'., 20 1-^3, 22-29. 

* The original order was Deut. 32 *8-52^ Num. 27 ^^-^^ Deut. 34. This 
order was necessarily disarranged when Deuteronomy was inserted as the 
testament of Moses. 



NEHExMIAH AND AFTER 4O5 

redactors, was to make of Israel the cluirch-nation, separate as 
far as possible from secular affairs and wholly consecrated to 
Yahweh. The sanctity of the people is guarded not alone by the 
provisions of the Holiness Code. These are extended and made 
more rigid. The defilement which may be contracted from un- 
clean animals, from childbirth, from leprosy and other diseases 
is defined, and directions are given for its treatment. The in- 
terest of the author is not sanitary but religious. He gives no 
directions for the medical treatment of leprosy (for example), 
but he is very stern in shutting the leper out of the congregation, 
because his presence there is an offence to Yahweh' s holiness. 

A curious example of the way in which ancient religious ideas 
have been carried over into these new and strenuous regulations 
is seen in the law for the great Day of Atonement. In order 
that the sacredness of the people may be kept intact it is enjoined 
that once a year there shall be an expiation made to cover what- 
ever defilement may not have been purged by the ordinary ser- 
vices. Besides the sacrifices appropriate to such a day we have 
the command for the scapegoat.* This is a goat laden (sym- 
bolically) with the sins of the people and then sent off into the 
wilderness for Azazel, that is, for one of the wilderness demons 
which the people formerly worshipped.^ 

Some other archaic features of this code are of interest here. 
Among them we are tempted to count the specific permission to 
offer doves at the altar. The dove was anciently sacred to As- 
tarte, and we should expect it to be taboo to the worshippers of 
Yahweh. Not to lay stress upon this, we may justifiably pause 
at the bells and pomegranates of the high -priest's robe. The 
pomegranates are certainly a relic of early heathenism, and the 
bells which notify Yahweh of the minister's approach (for so 
we must account for their use) do not accord with the postexilic 
theory of God's spirituality and omniscience. More striking is 
the jealousy ordeal which is conserved for us in the ritual. It 
is plain that the curses which are written out and then washed 
into the water which the woman drinks are regarded as materi- 

* I retain the ordinary term because I do not know any better one to sub- 
stitute. The law for the Day is found in Lev. 16, imbedded in the genera] 
directions for Aaron's entrance into the Sanctuary. 

' The sections which mention Azazel are a later insertion in the text of P. 
But it is evident that they represent very ancient usage. 



406 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ally conveyed into the woman's body where they work magi- 
cally upon her.^ The Nazirites who are mentioned in the im- 
mediate sequel also represent an early stage of Israel's religion. 

We should misunderstand the priestly writers were we jto sup- 
pose them compiling a manual for the priestly caste. They are 
fully imbued with the notion that correct performance of the 
sacred rites is necessary to the well-being of Israel — not alone for 
the Jews in Palestine, but for those in Babylonia as well. So 
long as the cultus was carried on, they could be sure of the 
favour of Yahweh ; should it be interrupted or be desecrated no 
Jew could rest in security. The book of the Law was intended 
to inform the people not only how they must live themselves but 
how the priests must carry on the service. The result was to 
make the laymen the sharpest critics of the priests. The result- 
ing bitterness of the Pharisees against careless priests is a well- 
known feature of the later history. In this view of the cultus we 
miss the spontaneity of the earlier documents. The sacrificial 
system was originally man's natural expression of his feeling 
toward God. To eat and drink and rejoice before Yahweh was 
a ritual that needed no exhortation and which received little 
regulation. The postexilic time had really outgrown such ex- 
pressions of piety. God was greater, more spiritual, and farther 
away than He had seemed to be in the earlier time. The cultus 
had become a thing ordained by Him as the expression of His 
will ; therefore it must be punctiliously performed. We may 
almost imagine its most devoted supporters sometimes wishing 
that God had been pleased to enjoin some other method of 
serving Him. 

If the elaborate service of the sanctuary is to be regularly 
performed the order of ministers must be worthily supported. 
It was not because the men whom we have called the priestly 
writers were themselves priests that they so carefully regulated 
the tithes and other sources of Levitical income. Probably the 
writers were not themselves members of the guild whose in- 
terests they had so much at heart. They were laymen who felt 
that the service of the sanctuary was the most important thing in 
the world. All the weight of tradition in favour of giving tithes 

^ Num. 5 ^^"^*. I do not mean that this regulation is of heathen origin, 
but that it represents the early religion of Israel. A parallel is found in 
Egyptian religion, cf. Wiedemann, Religion of the Ancient Egyptians ^ p. 58. 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 407 

and first-fruits and a share of the offerings to the priests was 
therefore emphasised by them. The result was to lay upon Israel 
a yoke which no people could long bear. But no considerations 
of mere expediency influenced the consistent theorists with which 
we now have to do. 

In one respect, however, we must modify what has been said 
about the cultus. There was, no doubt, a real religious feeling 
expressed in the sin-offerings which had now become so promi- 
nent. The theory that the whole Law must be thoroughly and 
scrupulously obeyed had as its result the depressing conviction 
that this was an almost impossible task. Every hour of the day a 
man was subject to contagion. Any moment of carelessness might 
cause him to forget some one of the regulations of his code. For 
intentional violation of the Law there was nothing but punishment, 
either excommunication from the chosen people or visitation by 
an act of God. But what should be done in case of uninten- 
tional sin ? This sin was truly sin, it was an offence against the 
sanctity of God ; it might work ruin, not only upon the guilty 
party, but also upon all his race. Fortunately a class of offerings 
had existed from of old (though not emphasised in the pre-exilic 
time) whose effect was to appease the anger of God. These now 
become prominent in the service and it is provided that they 
may be offered by individuals who discover or who suspect their 
own neglect. It is provided also that they shall be offered on 
stated occasions, to make amends for the possible carelessness of 
priests and people. It follows that the system of the completed 
Law is on the whole sombre in its tone. In this it no doubt 
reflects the prevailing mood of post-exilic Israel. For, as we have 
seen, the experiences of exile and of oppression had fostered just 
this frame of mind.' 

It is partly because of the sorrowful experiences of the present 
that the priestly school finds its ideal in the past. In their view 
Israel in the wilderness i)ossessed the strength and majesty which 
should belong to the people of God. The organization of the 
t\velve tribes, each with fifty thousand warriors, more or less, is 

^ How far Babylonian influence can be traced in the Priest-code is not 
yet satisfactorily made out. It would be strange not to find some such influ- 
ence ; cf. Haupt in the Johns Hopkins University Circulars, May, 1900, 
and in the Journal of Bib. Lit. XIX, pp. 55-81 ; also Keilinschrrften ujid 
Altes Testamnit,^ p. 589 f. 



408 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

complete. When they march they move like an army with ban- 
ners, and when they camp, they camp in perfect order in a square 
whose centre is the Tabernacle. Next to the sanctuary is the 
tribe of Levi to guard it from profanation, and this tribe has its 
standing orders concerning the removal and carriage of the sacred 
tent.^ All this embellishment of the history has no direct prac- 
tical value. It only expresses the conviction that in some sense 
the wilderness sojourn was the golden age of Israel's Hfe. There 
at any rate the theocracy was in full sway. When that should 
again be the case there would be room for another forward move 
in history. For the authors had a dim idea of progress. Their 
world periods are marked by the Deluge and the exodus. But 
within the periods there is no movement. Evidently all that 
can be done in the present time is to conserve the system in- 
troduced by Moses at its beginning. During the period now 
under review the stricter party in Jerusalem were holding on to 
the observance of the Law with the idea that they were thus liv- 
ing up to the perfect standard set by Yahweh Himself. In this 
observance they found comfort and satisfaction under manifold 
afflictions. Doubtless the more ritually inclined found in the 
Law the complete response to their soul's need. But others were 
meanwhile cherishing the Messianic hope and searching the 
prophetic writings which had come down from earlier times. 
We shall not go astray, in fact, if we locate in this period the col- 
lection into one corpus of the books, Joshua to Malachi, which 
form the second part of the Jewish canon. ^ 

In this collection is a little book which probably originated in 
this time and which throws hght upon the mind of the people. 
This is the book which bears the name of Joel. Its immediate 
occasion is a plague of locusts such as often devastates the lands 
bordering on the desert. In animated language the author de- 
scribes the invading host and calls the people to lament over its 
desolating career. In sharp contrast to the theory of the earlier 
prophets he lays emphasis upon fasting and sackcloth as means of 
influencing Yahweh. The priests are urged to lead in the suppli- 
cation — evidence of their present importance in the community. 

1 Num. 7 and lo. The regulations belong to the latest stratum of priestly 
legislation. 

^ One or two sections which bear marks of a later date will be considered 
soon. 



NFHEMIAH AND AFTER 409 

The description of the plague shows that the author identifies 
it with the invasion of Gog predicted by Ezekiel. The prayers 
of the people (united at the Temple) are effective with Yahweh. 
He inclines to His people and removes the plague from them. 
Renewed and increased fruitfulness will recompense them for 
the years which the locust has eaten. 

The great invasion is looked upon as the forerunner of the 
Day of Yahweh. After the plague has been removed the Mes- 
sianic time will come. The Spirit — the incentive to prophecy — 
will be poured out upon all flesh. Men-servants and maid-servants 
shall partake of the wonderful endowment. The extraordinary 
manifestations of the Spirit will moreover be ushered in by con- 
vulsions of nature — blood and fire and columns of smoke. Yah- 
weh will muster all nations in the Valley of Judgment/ and call 
them to strict account for their oppression of Israel. With what 
measure they have meted it shall be measured to them. Judah 
will now take possession of the Gentiles and sell them as slaves 
to the far countries. Or in another figure borrowed from an earlier 
prophet, Yahweh is presented as the treader of grapes ; the nations 
are the vintage and He will crush them as the grapes are crushed 
in the wine-press. After the judgment, Judah will dwell safely, 
and Jerusalem shall be uncontaminated by the Gentiles. Palestine 
will abound in wine and milk, but Egypt shall be a desolation 
and Edom shall lie waste. 

The Messianic expectation has here become almost stereotyped. 
Vengeance is to be taken on the heathen ; Judah is to have a 
golden age of agriculture ; prophecy is not to be monopolised 
by the select few — these features are all that stand out distinctly. 
The personal Messiah does not appear at all. Moreover, there is 
no thought of a great moral reformation. There is, to be sure, a 
call to repentance, fasting, and mourning. But we feel that this 
is only because these spiritual exercises are the traditional way of 
approaching Yahweh. The people are conscious that they are 
living in accordance with the Law and are the people of Yahweh. 
Of the conversion of the heathen there seems to be no thought. 
The Gentile nations are brought into judgment simply that they 

* The valley of Jehoshaphat appears here for the first time. Doubtless 
the XiZ.vs\t{Yah7veh judges) was coined by Joel. That he locates the great 
judgment at Jerusalem is probable, and to this extent the application of the 
name to the Kedron is justified. 



4IO OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

may be destroyed and that Judah may be no more molested. 
The author seems to look for the Day of Yahweh in the hn- 
mediate future. Yet there is a certain pallor about the expecta- 
tion. We feel that there will be no acute disappointment should 
there be delay. The people are not ambitious for great things. 
If only the locust and the drought can be removed they will be 
fairly content to go on as they are. They have no desire to be- 
come a world-power. The mood is that of a small and exclusive 
sect — enjoying their snug exclusiveness and willing to let the 
world ignore them if only they can be undisturbed. 

The idea of the judgment of the nations here adopted, or ex- 
panded, from Ezekiel, is a common theme of later apocalyptic 
writers. Not long after the writer we have just considered, it 
was borne in afresh upon men's minds. The Persian monarchy 
was showing signs of decay. The invasion of the heart of the 
empire by Cyrus the Younger and the retreat of the ten thou- 
sand Greeks revealed an unsuspected weakness. Egypt soon 
stirred Syria to revolt and the flames of war again passed over 
Palestine. Under Artaxerxes Ochus (b.c. 361-336) an im- 
mense army flooded Phoenicia and Egypt, working havoc wher- 
ever it went. Whether Jerusalem had taken part in the revolt 
is not clear. Josephus, who tells us that Bagoses, the Persian 
general, desecrated the Temple, does not speak of any injury 
done to the Temple or the city walls. He says only that 
Bagoses punished the Jews by imposing a tax on the daily 
sacrifices.^ 

These events stimulated the apocalyptic imagination of the 
Jews, and they saw again in the swift invader the advance guard 
of the great Day. Recent scholars ^ find a monument of these 
disturbances in the latest section of the book of Isaiah — chapters 
-24-27. The chapters take up and expand Joel's picture of the 
judgment of the nations. Yahweh is represented desolating the 
'earth ; people and priest, servant and master, buyer and seller 
are involved in a common fate. Wrath shall be poured out, not 
only on the kings of the earth, but also upon the heavenly host 
— the angels who were appointed to administer the aff"airs of the 

^Josephus {Anf. XI, 7, i) makes the occasion of Bagoses' invasion to be 
a quarrel about the high-priesthood. 

2 Preceded by Vatke ; cf. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah^ p. 
160. 



NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 41I 

world and who have been unfaithful.^ But the dispersed of Judah 
are to be spared — a remnant like the olives left on the tree after 
the crop has been gathered. These shall see the new day, the 
rule of Yahvveh on Mount Zion : 

" On this mountain will Yahweh Sabaoth make to all peoples 
A feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees. 
Of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well strained. 
On this mountain will He annihilate 
The veil which veils all peoples, 
The covering which covers all nations : 
Yea, the Lord Yahweh will wipe away tears from all faces, 
And the reproach of His people will He take away throughout all 
the earth." ^ 

This expectation differs from any we have yet met in the pa- 
thetic expression : '' Yahweh will wipe away tears from all faces" 
— a hope that has passed over into Christian literature. As we 
read it we ask ourselves : Can it be any earthly clime in which 
this hope is to be realised ? Is not the Messianic kingdom cut- 
ting loose from earth and seeking its habitation in another world ? 
Certainly the way is preparing for the celestial city. 

Reviewing the period whose history we have now tried to 
trace, we are impressed again with the importance of Nehe- 
miah and his work. Without him the separation of the stricter 
party would not have been accomplished, or else the party 
would have lacked staying power and have been ground to 
pieces by the adverse tendencies of the times. The separation 
once accomplished, the prominence of the Law and its ex- 
pansion followed as a matter of course. The Law in turn 
strengthened the party which cherished it, and made their ex- 
clusiveness more marked. The religious emotions easily learn to 
express themselves in the forms hallowed by tradition and sanc- 
tioned by a divine command. While the legalism which we 
find fully fledged at the end of the period may sometimes have 
fostered formalism and hypocrisy, this was by no means univer- 
sally true. The Psalms show how many a pious soul learned to 
delight in the Law of Yahweh after the inward man. To such 

^ The conception that the angels have been appointed satraps of the prov- 
inces under Yahweh's rule, is found in some other late passages, and is more 
fully developed in the book of Daniel. 

^ Isaiah, 25 ^^ ; Cheyne's translation. 



412 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

souls it was a boon to have prescribed forms in which to express 
their devotion — this is illustrated in other rehgions besides 
Judaism. For a time of temporal ill-fortune it is a comfort to 
have one's thoughts turned to what may be done for God. And 
that this will of God was in a book was also a boon to the op- 
pressed and heavy laden. Study is the solace of many an ach- 
ing heart. By attending to the sacred Book the mind learns to 
detach itself from the cares of this life and fix itself upon what be- 
longs to God. In the period under review the external fortune 
of the Jews was at a low ebb. Complaints of oppression, of per- 
secution, of the scoffing of the proud, are almost a common-place 
of the Psalms, many of which date from this period. But along 
with these complaints we find testimonies that God is near the 
humble and that He sustains those who trust in Him. In this 
experience the pious found the reward of obedience, though this 
reward was not the one upon which they had fixed their hopes. 



CHAPTER XVIII 

THE GREEK PERIOD 

Alexander of Macedon defeated the Persian army at Issus in 
the year ^;^:^ B.C. To break the naval power of his adversary it 
was necessary for him to get full possession of the Syrian coast. 
He therefore marched at once toward Egypt, making everything 
secure as he went. At only two points was there opposition — ■ 
at Tyre and at Gaza, both which cities had furnished contingents 
to the Persian fleet. Tyre fell after an obstinate resistance of 
seven months. The length of the siege of Gaza is given at two 
months. Thus the maritime plain was in Greek possession and, 
with this secure, the interior of Palestine must also yield. The 
cities of the highland can hardly have been of much importance. 
Jerusalem was no longer the capital of the country in any sense. 
Its wealth had long departed and the Arabian trade, once ex- 
ploited by Solomon, now went to the Philistine towns. 

A Jewish legend preserved by Josephus recounts that in his 
progress toward Egypt Alexander sent a message to the high- 
priest summoning him to acknowledge his new master. The 
high-priest (the story correctly represents him to be the political 
head of the community) replied that his allegiance was sworn 
to Darius and that to him he would be true. Alexander there- 
fore marched from Gaza to punish the contumacious city. The 
high-priest's loyalty to his oath was of no very enduring quality. 
In the old days the citizens would have manned the walls and 
stood a siege. In the present emergency the ruler took refuge in 
spectacular devices. Warned by a dream he arranged a proces- 
sion to meet the king. Without arms but in full pontificals, 
accompanied by a train of priests and citizens all clothed in 
white, he marched out of the city to the hill (Scopus) over 
which the conqueror was approaching. Alexander, to the sur- 
prise of his staff, without waiting for the obeisance of the ap- 
proaching train, himself did obeisance to the high-priest and 
declared that this was the figure which he had seen in a dream 

413 



414 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

early in his career and which had promised him the dominion of 
Asia. In consequence of the interview he showed favour to the 
city, offered sacrifice in the Temple, and exempted the people 
from paying tribute every seventh — that is, the Sabbatical — year. 

This story is indeed the stuff that dreams are made of. It is 
unnecessary to dwell upon its improbabilities.^ Not to speak 
of Greek authors who know nothing of the incident, the tradi- 
tion if reliable would have been known to the author of Daniel, 
for he shows himself familiar with the history of the Ptolemies 
and Seleucids, and so edifying a story would have impressed 
itself upon him. Legends about Alexander began to circulate 
soon after his death. Which one of these Josephus used to em- 
bellish his history we cannot make out. Whatever it was, we 
are unable to use it for the history of the Jews. Probably Jeru- 
salem had no such importance in Alexander's eyes as to call for 
a personal visit. It was only one town out of many in the prov- 
ince of Syria. This province had been secured by the surrender 
of the Persian governor. The Greek sources say distinctly that 
the rest of Palestine had made its submission to Alexander before 
the siege of Gaza.^ 

The only early impression concerning Alexander recorded in 
a Jewish source, is that given in the book of Daniel. Here the 
Greek power is pictured to us as the most ferocious among the 
ferocious beasts which the sage sees in his vision : '' The fourth 
beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; it had 
great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped 
the residue with its feet."^ We can see that the rapidity and 
thoroughness of Alexander's conquests were enough to strike ter- 
ror into the hearts of those who were conquered. More im- 
pressive even than his conquests was his method of unifying his 
empire by his numerous Greek colonies. The Greek was con- 
scious of a world mission. The Babylonian and Persian had 
been content for the most part to leave the subject peoples with 
their own customs. The new power was a source of discomfort 

' Antiquities, XT, 8. The improbabilities are most conclusively shown 
by Willrich, Jiiden iind Griechen vor der Makkabdischen Erhebung, p. 6 
ff. He refers to St. Croix, who took the same position in his Examen Cri- 
tique in 1775. This book I have not seen. 

' Arrian as cited by Willrich, Juden und Griechen, p. 15. I have not 
seen Donath's dissertation, Die Alexandersage^ mentioned by Willrich. 

3 Dan. 7 \ cf. V.23 and 8 5-8. 



THE GREEK PERIOD 415 

to its subjects, not only because the mercenaries plundered and 
oppressed them, but also because it insisted on reconstructing 
their social and political fabric. The full import of this comes 
out a little after Alexander. 

Alexander died before consolidating his empire. The period 
of bloodshed which followed his death has left no traces on 
the history of Judea,^ or rather, the traces have disappeared from 
the records. The little district about Jerusalem often changed 
masters, as did the city itself, during those troublous times, and 
each change brought oppression and suffering. Palestine was 
the bone of contention between Ptolemy and Antigonus, later be- 
tween the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. The first Ptolemy is 
said to have captured Jerusalem on a Sabbath, when the citizens 
would not fight, holding to the observance of the Law, even at 
the cost of slavery.^ 

At this time therefore a large number of Jews were carried as 
slaves into Egypt. The large Jewish population in Alexandria, 
of which we hear much at a later period, probably had its begin- 
nings at this date. When once a nucleus was established by the 
manumission of some of these slaves the community would grow 
by attracting other Jews. The people had learned in Babylon how 
to live and yet preserve their separateness from the Gentiles. In 
Palestine the means of livelihood were scanty, and the miseries of 
war were chronic. Emigration would be the natural method of 
relief, and the fertile country of the Nile would attract those who 
sought a new home. It is not necessary to suppose that the 
Ptolemies colonised Alexandria with Jews or that a wholesale 
manumission of Jewish slaves took place, such as is attributed 
to Ptolemy Philadelphus.^ The age was an age of migration 
and the Jews felt the impulse. It was also an age in which the 

^ At about the period of Alexander's conquest some authors now place 
the discourses against the nations contained in the book of Jeremiah (chap- 
ters 25, 46-51). The arguments, however, seem precarious. Cf. Schwally 
in the Zeitschr.f. d. Alttesi. Wissensch., VIII, 177 ff., and Giesebrecht in his 
commentary. 

"^ This question of the Sabbath again became a burning one in the time of 
the Maccabees. The incident under Ptolemy I. is taken by Josephus {Ant.^ 
XII, r, and. Against A pion, I, 22) from a Greek author. The manner in which 
this author (Agatharchides of Cnidus) treats it, is a strong guarantee of its 
correctness, as is pointed out by Willrich, Juden und Griechen, p. 22. 

* In the letter of Aristeas, 12-26. 



4l6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

cities assumed new importance under the influence of Greek 
ideas.^ 

Ptolemy's possession of the country was contested by Antigonus, 
who in 315 B.C. took possession of Syria down to the Egyptian 
frontier. The Egyptians repulsed him (or his son Demetrius) in 
a hard-fought battle at Gaza three years later. The next year, 
however, Antigonus returned and again took possession of the 
country with the expectation of carrying the war into Africa. 
Although the invasion of Egypt was not successful, Syria re- 
mained six years in his power. But now Antigonus (perhaps 
the ablest of the aspirants to Alexander's empire) was opposed by 
a coalition and by them defeated and slain in the year 301 b.c.^ 
By this battle Seleucus was secured in the possession of the 
eastern provinces of Alexander's empire. The two kingdoms 
with which the Jews had now to deal were Syria and Egypt, 
The former, under the rule of the house of Seleucus, extended 
from the bay of Issus to the frontiers of India. By express 
agreement, Egypt and the Ptolemies were to have Coelesyria 
as it was called, that is, Palestine and the Lebanon. But now, 
as in the old days, the Mesopotamian power felt that its natural 
outlet toward the west was by the ports of the Mediterranean. 
Scarcely had Ptolemy taken possession of Palestine, therefore, 
when Seleucus with his victorious elephants advanced to contest 
his claim. The complicated struggle which ensued is difficult to 
follow intelhgently, and its details do not specially concern an Old 
Testament historian. Seleucus seems to have been in control in 
Palestine in the year 295 B.C. Twenty years later Ptolemy Phila- 
delphus came to the front and extended his sway as far as the 
Lebanon.^ Antiochus III., called the Great, vindicated the Se- 
leucid claim in 219 B.C., but was obliged to retreat. A second at- 
tempt in 198 B.C. was more successful. From this time down to 

* An inscription recently discovered shows that a synagogue was dedicated 
in one of the smaller towns of the Delta in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes 
(247-222 B.c); see Schiirer in the Theol. Literahirzeitung, 1903, col. 156. 

2 The battle of Ipsus in this year is one of the decisive battles of history. 
Cf. Stark, Gaza und die Philistdische Kiiste (1852), p. 359 ff. ; Droysen, 
Geschichte des Hellenisnnis j"^ II, 2, p. 216 ff. ; Mahaffy, Alexander's Empire, 
p. 67. 

^Schiirer, Gesch. des Jiid. Volkes^ II., p. 74. A chronological table 
covering the period from the death of Alexander to the Roman conquest of 
the East is given by Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, pp. xiv-xxxii. 



THE GREEK PERIOD 417 

the Roman supremacy the kingdom of Syria was supreme in 
Palestine.^ 

Both Ptolemies and Seleucids were Greek by blood. Both 
families regarded themselves as legitimate successors of Alexan- 
der, and both desired to continue Alexander's policy of Hellen- 
ising the East. The most conspicuous feature of this new civili- 
sation was the predominance of the city as a political entity. 
Semitic society is based on the tribe. This we see in the history 
of Israel. The cities — Hebron, Shechem, Samaria — nowhere 
take part in political movements ; these movements spring from 
the tribes, Judah, Ephraim, or Benjamin. In the era now before 
us, the tribe disappears from view and the city takes its place. 
Nothing strikes the student more forcibly than the number of 
new cities that now come to the front. The old towns when 
conquered or surrendered are rebuilt and reorganised. By their 
side many new ones spring into existence. The kings are pre- 
eminently patrons of these cities, and whether the cities are re- 
built, enlarged, or newly founded, they receive Greek colonists. 
Alexander himself is said to have founded more than sixty of 
these cities in his brief career. The number founded by his suc- 
cessors rises into the hundreds. In Palestine, as elsewhere, old 
and new cities received the Greek organization. Besides the 
chief places in Philistia and across the Jordan, we read that 
Joppa, Dor, Accho, Bethshan (all Israelite by tradition) belong 
in this class. The state of things in Jerusalem is not revealed to 
us by any express declaration, and in the small district of which it 
was now the capital, we do not find any cities on the new model. 

It was in accord with the Greek idea that the city should have 
its autonomy. This was carried out, so far as the supremacy of 
the king was not encroached upon. The seat of power was rec- 
ognised to be the demos ^ the body of freemen. Along with 
them the city was inhabited by slaves and clients who had no 
voice in the Assembly. The administration was in the hands of 
a Council chosen from the freemen. So long as the taxes were 
paid, and so long as complaints of injustice were not heard, this 
body was allowed to carry on the government. The surround- 
ing country and its villages naturally fell under its jurisdiction. 
The franchise was not confined to men of a single race. In 

^ As against any foreign claimant, that is ; the actual condition under the 
Maccabean princes will be considered at length in the next chapter. 



4l8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

some instances it is clear that it was possessed by both Jews and 
Greeks in the same city.^ 

Although we have no distinct assertion concerning Jerusa- 
lem in this period, we may readily suppose that the tendency 
toward new civic autonomy had a favourable effect on the de- 
pressed commonwealth of the Jews. Jerusalem under a Persian 
governor, though the centre of the district, had little opportunity 
to assert itself. Under the new system its predominance in the 
district would be emphasised. The headship of the community 
had been vested in the high-priest. The democratic organisa- 
tion would readily associate with him a committee of influential 
citizens, and give him in some respects more real power than he 
had ever had. It does not seem forced, therefore, to suppose 
that the period before us saw the rise of the Sanhedrin — a senate 
whose importance for the later history of Judaism can scarcely be 
overestimated. At a later time we find that the smaller towns 
also had their Councils, but these do not emerge into view in the 
present period. 

Greek colonies carried Greek culture, and Greek culture 
brought with it Greek religion. No city could be founded or 
repopulated by Alexander or his successors without receiving a 
patron deity from the Greek pantheon.^ The gymnasium, the 
theatre, and the baths were consecrated each to its proper divin- 
ity. This would not be objectionable to most orientals. Syr- 
ians and Phoenicians discovered their own gods in those which 
came in with the new colonists. Melkart and Heracles were, in 
fact, identical in origin, and so were Aphrodite and Ishtar. Even 
where the identification could not be made, toleration was the 
rule. In polytheistic religions, a few gods more or less do not 
make much difference. The attractiveness of the Greek mythol- 
ogy in itself is evident from the spell which it still exercises on 
men of taste. The aggressive power of Greek art and literature 
(manifest throughout the new empire of Alexander) implied ag- 
gressive power also in Greek religion. 

1 Statements of Jewish writers on this subject are, however, to be re- 
ceived with caution. It was evidently to their interest to claim for their peo- 
ple everything that belonged to the most favoured nation. 

2 The importance of religion to the Greek city is well set forth by Fustel 
de Coulanges, La Cite Antique (I have the seventh edition, 1879; the 
English translation is dated 1877). 



THE GREEK PERIOD 4I9 

We cannot indeed suppose that the East was more than su- 
perficially Hellenised. Only the more educated or the more 
thoughtful minds could appreciate Greek literature, art, and phi- 
losophy. But the mass of men would be attracted by the bright- 
ness and gaiety of Greek life. Among the Jews we have found 
reason to suppose there were already two parties. The laxer one 
would not be slow to feel the new attraction. The stricter one 
had already adopted the maxim that Yahweh is a jealous God. 
His Law, which they were already translating into life, had pro- 
tected His worshippers from contamination by Baal. It would 
prove sufficient to repel the seductions of Dionysus or Aphro- 
dite. After some centuries, the thinking few discovered that it 
was possible to adopt Greek thought and (to a considerable ex- 
tent) Greek culture without giving up Hebrew religion. But 
for the present the alternatives seemed to exclude each other. 

The first effect of the new civilisation among the Jews was, as 
we might expect, a stout affirmation of the validity of the old 
system. On this supposition we can readily account for the 
book which we call Chronicles, one of the most important liter- 
ary products of the period.^ The author has in mind to write a 
complete history of his people in a* form that will edify his con- 
temporaries, and he does this with a thoroughness which in the 
view of his school must have left little to be desired. We have 
no difficulty in discovering what he thinks necessary to edify his 
contemporaries; it is to show the divine origin of the Hebrew 
commonwealth, its divine guidance, and its organisation from 
;he beginning in the form it has taken in his own time. 

Now, as we have seen, the postexilic community at Jerusalem 
was a church and not a state. Its centre was the Temple. The 
reason for its existence was the conservation of the Temple wor- 
ship. In all honesty therefore the Chronicler held this thesis: 
The Temple is the central object of all human history. And his 
work is really a defence of this thesis. First we have an intro- 
ductory section consisting of genealogies. These genealogies are 
made up from the older historical books and they are designed to 

^ Under Chronicles we include Ezra and Nehemiah. On the date and 
nature of the composition the discussion of De Wette in his Beitrdge, I 
(1806), is still worth reading. Cf. also Wellhausen, Prolegomena; Driver, 
Tntrodiiction, and the articles in Hastings' Bible Dictionary and in the En- 
•yclopcedia Biblica. 



420 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

show Israel's place among the nations of the earth, to show also 
that postexilic Israel is the legitimate descendant of old Israel. 
We have seen how much emphasis the community organised by 
Nehemiah laid upon purity of blood. Possibly even the more 
liberal party had learned the use of genealogy. That the gene- 
alogies on record were often fictitious agrees with what we ob- 
serve in other ages. 

If it was important to show that the Jews as a whole were of 
pure blood it was even more important to show this for the 
priests and Levites. Not only did they form a sort of aristoc- 
racy in the community ; their right to take part in divine ser- 
vice (whose conformity to the divine Law was a sine qua non for 
the well-being of the nation) was based upon their blood. We 
can understand how important and how practical was this part of 
the work before us. 

The historical part of the work, counting from the death of 
Saul to the end of Nehemiah' s administration, falls into three 
almost equal parts. The first embraces the reigns of David and 
Solomon. The author had no really historical information ex- 
cept what is contained in our books of Samuel and Kings. ^ And 
in using these sources the author kept his main purpose steadily 
in view. With him history begins with David. Saul is left 
entirely out of view, for he was rejected and his kingdom was il- 
legitimate. And in the history of David and Solomon much 
that does not bear on the main object is resolutely omitted. 
That main object is to show David and Solomon wholly devoted 
to the work of the Lord in building the Temple and organising 
its services. David' spends his life in collecting the material for 
the sanctuary. He organises the Levites on the lines of the 
postexilic system. While yet in full strength he sets Solomon on 
the throne and hands over to him the plan and the materials for 
the Temple with a solemn charge for the completion of the great 
work. We are reminded of Ptolemy I. abdicating in favour of 
his son while still in full possession of his powers.^ 

1 For the present purpose this is enough to say about the sources. The 
author probably had various documents at his hand not much older than his 
own time which had worked over the history in the same spirit by which he 
himself was moved. Cf. Kittel in the Handkommentar. 

^This took place in 285 b. C. according to Mahaffy, Greek Life and 
Thought, p. 200. How far the Chronicler's picture differs from that of the 
earlier history need not be pointed out. 



THE GREEK PERIOD 42 1 

It would not be difficult for the Jewish student to read be- 
tween the lines a comparison of his own kings with the Ptol- 
emies in other respects — to the advantage of the former. If the 
kings of Egypt were religious in their way, David and Solomon 
were more religious in their way, with the advantage that theirs 
was the true way. Seen through the vista of the centuries 
David's prowess was more than Alexander's, and Solomon's 
wealth was greater than any upstart Greek dynasty could show. 
If the later kings were great builders, so was Solomon a great 
builder and a coloniser as well. Did he not settle Israelites in 
the cities given him by the Phoenicians and in the cities of 
Hamath? Did he not build Tadmor in the wilderness and 
other strongholds ? And as for military preponderance, let the 
twelve great divisions of David's standing army answer, each con- 
taining twenty-four thousand men,^ and these not foreign mer- 
cenaries ready to go over to an opponent if tempted by higher 
pay, but true sons of Israel each ready to shed the last drop of 
his blood for Yahweh and His anointed. Doubtless the resem- 
blance and the contrast were in the mind of the historian. If 
he made his kings patrons of literature also, like the contempo- 
rary Ptolemies, he found tradition ready to his hand, for both 
David and Solomon were already counted authors of the first 
rank, with whom neither Ptolemy or Seleucid could vie. 
, In the second section of the history — from Solomon to the 
exile — there was much to pass over in silence. The revolt of 
Jeroboam was a revolt against the divine order. It was, in fact, 
so considered by the author of the book of Kings. To the 
Chronicler the effects were more far-reaching. By the revolt, as 
he regarded it, the ten tribes cut themselves off from the divinely 
ordered commonwealth. Judah alone now becomes the heir of the 
promises, and with Judah alone our history concerns itself. The 
fortunes of the larger half of the nation are resolutely cut out of the 
narrative. Even the heroic struggle of Elijah against the Tyrian 
Baal has no interest for our author. His only use for Elijah is in 
having him write a letter to rebuke one of the kings of Judah. ^ 

1 I Chron. 27. Solomon's 4,000 chariots (2 Chron. g^S) belong in the 
same category, though here tradition had already invaded the earlier book of 
history. 

* 2 Chron. 21 ^'^-''^'^. The theory of temporal punishment for sin is illus- 
trated in the crassest manner in this passage. 



422 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

The Chronicler's theory of history is writ large in all this 
narrative. The kings who conserve the institutions of the Law 
are rewarded with long life and prosperity. Those who depart 
from the Law are punished by invasion and calamity and their 
reigns are cut short. The prophets are always at hand to make 
plain the causal connexion of sin and misfortune, and the good 
kings themselves not infrequently ascend the pulpit and edify us 
by justifying the ways of God to men. Thus Abijah expounds 
to Jeroboam and his men the sin of which they had been guilty 
in throwing off their allegiance to David's house. The dis- 
course is emphasised by a tremendous victory. Jehoshaphat 
encourages his men to trust in Yahweh and sets a choir of 
Levites before the army. The spiritual arm is mighty and the 
enemy is discomfited. That the hint given by the book of 
Kings concerning Hezekiah's reforms gives the author opportu- 
nity to make of this king a saint after his own heart does not 
surprise us ; and that Manasseh's long reign is accounted for by 
an act of repentance does not move us more. 

It is plain that we have here to do not with a history but with 
an argument. The Temple with its corps of officials is a 
wholly divine institution — this is the thesis which comes again 
and again to the front. After the organisation of the priesthood 
by David the sole purpose of the commonwealth is to keep the 
Temple and its services in honour. The Davidic dynasty was 
not necessary to this ; when they were rejected, foreign kings 
took their place. To show this is the object of the third section 
of the work (now called by the names Ezra and Nehemiah). 
Here we find Gentile monarchs becoming nursing fathers of the 
theocracy. Cyrus gives command to rebuild the Temple and 
defrays the cost from the royal revenues. Darius rebukes the 
enemies of Israel and commands the work to go forward. 
Artaxerxes sends Ezra back to reintroduce the Law and clothes 
him with regal powers as well as makes a magnificent donation to 
the Temple. The same Artaxerxes gives Nehemiah authority to 
rebuild the walls, and to enforce the peculiar institutions of 
Judaism. That the greater part of this is not history we have 
had occasion to note. It should be doubly clear to us now that 
we see how completely the author is possessed by his ideal. 
And this is what pious and narrow men were dreaming when 
Greek art and Greek thought were making their way in western 



THE GREEK PERIOD 423 

Asia. They were holding on the more tenaciously to their own 
system the more it was threatened by another civilisation. 
They were perhaps reconciling themselves to the possibility that 
the Messiah was not to come for some time. In that case they 
consoled themselves with the thought that God could move Gen- 
tile kings to do all that was necessary for the support of the true 
religion.^ All that the priestly caste really needed was to be pro- 
tected in the exercise of their functions. And this protection 
they found, often at least, under Gentile kings. 

But this protection could not always be counted upon, and 
when war or sedition came, the hope of a Son of David quickly 
revived. This is shown by an obscure document which we now 
find in the Book of the Twelve. ^ Its descriptions of what is 
going on in Jerusalem are no longer intelligible to us. But we are 
able to make out that the kingdoms of Syria and Egypt have 
taken the place of the ancient enemies of Israel. The writer be- 
gins by prophesying that Yahweh will take possession of the land 
of Syria and subdue to Himself the Philistine cities. Then the 
Messiah will come, but not with pomp and circumstance like 
the rulers of this world : " Rejoice, daughter of Zion ! Shout, 
daughter of Jerusalem ! Righteous and victorious is he ; meek 
also and riding upon an ass, upon the foal of an ass. He shall 
cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem ; 
.the warlike bow shall be destroyed and he shall speak peace to 
the nations, and shall rule from sea to sea and from the river to 
the ends of the land." ^ 

These verses give the author's expectation. The rest of the 
prophecy shows the various ways in which the wished-for con- 
summation is to be attained. The Messiah indeed is a prince of 
peace. But His reign can begin only after the defeat of the 

^ The Messianic hope is not prominent in the Chronicler's narrative. 
The only trace of it seems to be the promise that David's throne should be 
established for ever. The non-fulfilment of this promise may have been 
accounted for by the unfaithfulness of David's descendants. Probably the 
author, who is interested in the hierocracy, may have had the uneasy feeling 
that a new David would not be a comfortable man to get along with. 

2 Which we call the Minor Prophets. The passage is Zechariah, 9-14. 
The chapters are so near together in point of time that the question whether 
they are by a single author is of subordinate importance. 

' Zech. 9 "". It is plain that this passage makes the Messiah's kingdom ex- 
tend as far as Solomon's, but no farther. 



424 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Gentiles, and this is the work of Yahweh Himself. He will take 
Judah as His bow and Ephraim as His arrow and direct them 
against the enemy. The same thing is expressed in the figure 
that the sheep of Yahweh will become war-horses against the 
oppressive shepherds. The shepherds are the Gentile rulers of 
Israel. When they are trodden down, the scattered Sons of Is- 
rael will return to their own country and fill it so that even 
Gilead and Lebanon shall not suffice for them. This will be 
only after a time of trial and purification, but in the end the 
remnant will be the people of Yahweh and He will be their 
God.i 

A variation upon the same theme follows, showing all nations 
besieging Jerusalem. But Yahweh Himself will descend upon 
the Mount of Olives and make war against them. First, how- 
ever, will come the extremity of suffering. The city will be 
taken and plundered — only half the people will escape and they 
will flee through the passage opened by the dividing of the 
Mount of Olives. This will be followed by the victory of Yah- 
weh which will usher in His reign — a reign that will not be 
earthly in its character, for heat and cold and day and night will 
cease. Jerusalem will become the ecclesiastical centre of the 
earth, to which all nations will make pilgrimage. Those which 
refuse will be punished by the withholding of their rain — or 
if it be Egypt (which is not dependent on rain) then by some 
other plague. The ritual character of the city is indicated by 
the declaration that all the cooking vessels in the city will be 
consecrated to Yahweh, so that the multitude of worshippers may 
be able to use them for the festival sacrifice.^ 

The pious were still holding on to the Messianic hope, and 
the hope was beginning to take the fantastic shape of later apoca- 

^ The promise, 13 ''~^, seems the continuation of the discourse against the 
shepherds; see Nowack in his commentary i^Handkommentar, 1897). It is 
unnecessary here to discuss the obscure passage concerning the three shep- 
herds cut off in one month. It seems to refer to frequent changes in the 
high-priesthood under the Syrian rule, or perhaps in the change from Syria 
to Egypt and back again. 

^Zech. 14 ^°^. This chapter seems to be an independent composition and 
differs somewhat from the rest of the book. Its statement that Jerusalem 
will be taken by the enemy before the deliverance comes may be the basis 
for later speculations concerning the Antichrist. The reputation into which 
the prophets had fallen is indicated by 13 ^-^ 



THE GREEK PERIOD 425 

lyptic visions. The high-priestly regime was far from satisfying 
the requirements of those who chmg most closely to the Law. 
This is what we learn from this part of the book of Zechariah. 
What the mind of the more rigidly pious Jews was toward the 
Gentiles is revealed to us by the striking polemic which we find 
in the book of Jonah. The little tract seems strangely out of 
place among the works of the ancient seers. It purports indeed 
to relate the adventures of one of them, in the endeavour to 
escape from the duty divinely laid upon him. But we easily dis- 
cover that the narrative is a parable. The hateful world-power is 
presented tons under the figure of that Nineveh which was famous 
at one time as the capital of the world. That it will be destroyed 
is assumed to be the hope of Jews of the Jonah type. Therefore 
when the prophet is sent to announce the doom of the city, he 
flees — not from cowardice, but because he knows the merciful 
nature of Yahweh. If he announces the coming vengeance, the 
people will repent and then they will be spared. But this is not 
what he wants — he wants the hated world-power to be destroyed. 

As he anticipated, so it turned out. Miraculously brought 
back from his flight, he witnessed the repentance of the great 
city. But not willing to give up his hope that it would be de- 
stroyed, he took up his station just outside the walls and watched 
for the threatened catastrophe. Angry at the patience of Yah- 
.weh, he was taught a lesson by the vine in whose shade he has 
rejoiced. Smitten by a worm, the vine withers and exposes the 
prophet to the hot Assyrian sun. As he laments over the death 
of the ephemeral plant the divine voice asks him : Should not 
God take pity on the hundred thousand innocent infants in 
Nineveh, not to speak of the cattle to whose charge no sin could 
be laid ? 

The man who could thus write was a bold man. Who ever 
rebuked the narrowness of the sect to which he belonged without 
incurring their suspicion or hatred? To the stricter Jews the 
Gentiles had become objects of hatred only. For them Jonah 
is intended to hold the mirror up to nature. The author of the 
book believed God to be the God of the Jews not only, but also 
of the Gentiles. This God has compassion on the works of His 

^At the present day it seems difficult to imagine anyone taking it for any- 
thing else. The embittered controversy over the historicity of the book 
may now be counted a thing of the past. 



426 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

hands ; even the heathen who repent of their sins find accept- 
ance with Him. And Jonah may be something more than a 
type of that narrow exclusiveness which the author abhorred. 
It is possible that missionary ideas are here embodied. If Israel 
was in possession of the true rehgion, had it not a duty to per- 
form in enlightening those who were deprived of this knowl- 
edge ? Some such questions could not fail to be started by this 
little book. For the time being, however, it had no visible 
effect. 

The Ptolemies were patrons of Greek literature. Philadel- 
phus, the second of the line, was in accord with his father in the 
desire to make Alexandria a literary centre. The older king 
founded, and the younger fostered, the celebrated Museum and 
library which were counted among the wonders of the world. 
The direct influence of these institutions on the Jews of Palestine 
could not have been large. And yet they may have given some 
stimulus to the study of old Hebrew literature. Some such mo- 
tive may be assumed at this time for the collection and preserva- 
tion of the poems contained in the book called the Song of Songs, 
that is, the most perfect song. A Hebrew scholar, knowing of 
the boasted beauty of Greek erotic poetry, desired to show that his 
own country and language could show something as beautiful. 

The Song of Songs is made up of 'lyrics whose common sub- 
ject is the joy of the wedding time. For the week given over to 
the wedding festivities, the bride and groom are queen and king 
of their little village. They receive the homage of their friends 
in terms borrowed from the pomp of Solomon. They speak in 
these folk-songs, describing each other's charms or expressing the 
delights they find in each other's company. The frankness with 
vv^hich these charms and these delights are portrayed is not in ac- 
cordance with modern taste. To judge the poems rightly, we 
must remember that it is wedded love which forms their sub- 
ject. What we can appreciate is the love of nature which here 
reveals itself — a trait of the Hebrew temperament which we rarely 
find elsewhere. The intoxication of the newly wedded pair is 
enhanced by the fresh blooming of the flowers, the singing of 
the birds, the perfume of the opening spring. Such a book 
owes its place in the canon to a thorough misunderstanding. It 

^ The Museum was a school for critical and grammatical studies ; see Ma- 
haffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 91 ff. 



THE GREEK PERIOD 427 

was early interpreted as an expression of Yahweh's love for His 
people — Hosea's immortal parable had impressed itself on the 
thought of the scribes.^ But while it is true that oriental mys- 
tics have often described their religious raptures in terms bor- 
rowed from sensual love^ there is no evidence that the author or 
editor of these poems was one of their number.^ While we are 
compelled to reject this interpretation, we may still be grateful 
that so charming a specimen of Hebrew literature has been pre- 
served to us, and also that so human a document has found a 
place in our Bible. 

Some of the poems which were later combined in our Book of 
Psalms doubtless originated in the period before us, but their 
consideration may properly come later, in the period in which 
the whole collection was put in circulation. More characteristic 
of the epoch we are now considering was the rise of what we call 
the Wisdom literature. This includes a group of books, part of 
which (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) found a place in the Canon of 
Scripture, while a part (Sirach, Wisdom) was never so received 
by the Palestinian Jews — though their circulation among Greek- 
speaking Jews introduced them to the Church. Their common 
features are so striking that we cannot doubt their belonging to 
the same period.^ Fortunately we are able to date one of them 
approximately, and thus to locate the whole group, which belongs 
in or near the period now under discussion. The translator of 
ben Sira, who is the grandson of the author, expressly states 
that he came into Egypt in the thirty-eighth yeai of Ptolemy 
Euergetes. This must be the second Euergetes, because the first 
reigned but twenty-five years. This writer therefore came to 
Egypt in the year 132 B.C. We may assume that his grandfather's 

* The parable was taken up and drawn out by Ezekiel (chapters 16 and 23), 
as we have noticed. 

^ The allegorical interpretation of the Song has now generally been given 
up by Protestant scholars. Until recently, however, the book was supposed 
to be dramatic in its structure — portraying the triumph of virtuous love over 
the seductive attempts of a royal suitor. This hypothesis is ably defended 
by Driver {Introduction, pp. 436-448). On the whole subject the reader 
may consult the recent commentaries by Siegfried {Handkommentar, i8q8) 
and Budde {Kicrzer Ifandkommentar, 1898), also Budde's article in the New 
World for 1894. An extended bibliography is given in the commentaries. 

^ Three of them are ascribed to Solomon, the fourth bears the author's own 
name. Probably this was the reason why the last was not received by the 
Rabbis. 



428 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

book was completed some years earlier.^ As it contains no clear 
reference to the Maccabean struggle, we may date it before, but 
probably not much before, the year 170 B.C. 

The work which thus claims our attention seems to show Greek 
influence — not so much in what it says as in what it implies. 
The translator begins by extolling the great things which have 
been handed down by the Law, the Prophets, and those who 
have followed them — ''on account of which one must praise 
Israel for culture and wisdom." The language looks like a 
direct challenge to the boasted philosophy of the Greeks, as 
though to say that Israel has a superior culture derived from a 
more venerable tradition. The energy of the protest shows the 
extent to which thinking men were conscious of the Greek 
claim. 

We shall wrong the author, however, if we suppose him in- 
terested in philosophy for its own sake. The Semitic mind has 
little use for merely speculative thinking. The wisdom, in refer- 
ence to which the author reckons Israel no whit behind the very 
chiefest of the peoples, has little ambition to explain the origin of 
things or to bring the universe into a rational scheme. It feels 
deeply the practical problems of life and aims to aid in their 
solution. This wisdom, then, is the guide of life, guaranteed to 
lead its disciples into ways of righteousness and therefore into 
paths of peace. Its resemblance to the earliest teachings of 
Greek wise men easily impresses the reader. 

This wisdom is to her devotees the subject of unbounded 
panegyric. By their imagination she is personified as a beauti- 
ful and majestic being — goddess the Jew could not call her — the 
constant friend, companion and counsellor of those who seek her. 

" Wisdom instructs her sons ; 
And warns those who attend to her. 
Those who love her love life ; 
And those who seek her early find acceptance. 
Those who hold her fast attain honour ; 
And abide in the blessing of Yahweh. 

1 A discussion of the various theories about the book will be found in 
Kautzsch, Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alien Test. (1900), p. 235 f. 
(by Ryssel). The grammatical difficulty of the passage in the prologue on 
which all depends is relieved by parallels cited by Deissmann, Bibelsiudien, 
p. 255; cf. also Schurer, Gesch. des Jud. Volkes,^ III, p. 159. 



THE GREEK PERIOD 429 

Those who serve her serve the Holy One ; 

And her lovers Yahweh loves. 

He who hearkens to her shall judge rightly ; 

And he who listens to her shall abide in her house." ^ 

This wisdom is not the possession of man alone. She is an 
attribute of God Himself. When the author exhorts her to utter 
her own praise, she declares that she came forth from the mouth 
of the Most High, that she has her throne in the heights, that 
she alone has circled the earth, and walked through the depths of 
the abyss. ^ It is evident that the personification has gone far 
toward making wisdom the supreme emanation from the God- 
head. But we soon see that cosmogonic speculation is far from 
the author's thought. For this wisdom, after visiting all the na- 
tions of the earth, has her abiding-place assigned her in Israel. 

" Then the Creator of all things commanded me ; 
And my Maker gave me a home. 
And He said : In Jacob take up thy dwelling, 
And in Israel receive thy possession." 

And after an extended panegyric of the delights of wisdom, the 
author adds : 

** All this is the Book of the Covenant of the Most High, 
The Law which Moses commanded 
As a possession for the congregation of Jacob." ' 

This then is where we come out : the true wisdom had visited 
all the nations of the earth. But in none of them had she chosen 
to abide except in Israel. Here she had taken permanent form 
in the Law given by Moses. In Palestinian circles at least the 
pressure of Greek thought had driven men to take a firmer hold 
on the Law as the sufficient philosophy. By studying the Law 
and living according to it, all the practical problems of life are 
solved. It was perhaps with a view to discourage speculative 
disc-iission that an author of this school inserted into the book of 
Job a chapter in praise of wisdom which, though justly admired 

* Ecclus. 4 ^^"^^. I have followed the Hebrew text as given by Peters, Der 
Jungst Wiederaiifgefundene Hebrdische Text des Bitches Ecclesiasticus 
(1902). Similar panegyrics are found in 14^^"^^, 15 ^~®. 

"^ Ibid., 24i-«. 

^ Ibid. , 24 ®~2^. Read the whole passage. 



430 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

for the beauty of its thought, is an evident intrusion in the com- 
position of which it now forms a part/ In this chapter it is 
declared in effect that wisdom in the highest sense — the philos- 
ophy that would solve the problems of the universe — is the prop- 
erty of God alone. At the same time there is a wisdom for 
man, which consists in the fear of God — that is, in religion — 
and in departing from evil — that is, in a righteous life. Sirach 
would not formulate it in this way, but he would accept the 
general principle that speculation is useless. And he would go 
one step farther than the interpolator in declaring that God has 
in the Law communicated enough of the heavenly wisdom to 
serve man's need. 

But if indeed the philosophia ultima is contained in the book 
of the Law, then the study and exposition of this book become 
of the first importance. And as one can study better under a 
master than by himself, the teacher becomes an important char- 
acter in the community. Our author has a high opinion of the 
profession of scribe, as we shall have occasion to notice a little 
later. And to his mind the scribe is an ethical teacher. In his 
system little stress is laid upon liturgy, but much upon manners 
and morals. The boundary line between manners and morals is 
not more distinctly drawn here than is the case in most ancient 
systems. The result in the case of ben Sira is not unpleasing. 
His ideal includes patience, courage, modesty, kindness, temper- 
ance, chastity, and prudence. Particular cautions are given 
with reference to evil associates. Friendship is praised as one of 
the best of privileges. Intimacy with those in high station and 
with the wealthy is deprecated. Enjoyment of the good things 
of life is commended if only due moderation be observed. 

With this ethical cosmopolitanism, however, the blood of the 
Israelite asserts itself in hatred of the old-time enemies — Philis- 
tines and Edomites — and of the new sectaries, " the foolish peo- 
ple that dwell in Shechem." The present rule of the Gentiles is 
felt as a reproach ; a prayer is uttered that it may come to an 
end and that the tribes of Jacob may again be set in their own 
land. There is no zeal, however ; there are no fantastic dreams 
of a personal Messiah, coming in the clouds of heaven. No 
more is there any hope of a future life in our sense of the word ; 
nor is there any hint of a resurrection. In the abode of the 

1 Job, 28. 



THE GREEK PERIOD 43 1 

departed none praise God/ All the more reason is there that 
men should repent in this life. The lot of men is apportioned 
by God according to justice and also with mercy. The problem 
which wrung the heart of the author of the book of Job seems 
not to give any more trouble. And yet our author stands on 
the ground of complete individualism — he believes that God 
deals with every man directly. 

The roll of fame in which this book praises the great men of 
Israel omits the names of Ezra and of Daniel — a phenomenon of 
the utmost importance. To those names which we know from the 
earlier Scriptures it adds one, that of Simon the high-priest, 
apparently a contemporary of the author. This man, apparently 
a worthy head of the community, is praised for his care of the 
Temple. He is said to have strengthened the building and to 
have provided it with a reservoir. It has been plausibly con- 
jectured that such works were undertaken in the time of Antio- 
chus the Great, who, when he took possession of Syria, found 
it to his interest to conciliate the Jews. But of this we can have 
no certain knowledge. 

The passage devoted to Simon gives us a vivid impression of 
the effect which the Temple worship must have had upon the 
faithful Jew. We read of the magnificent presence of the high- 
priest in his robes, accompanied by his train of inferior clergy. 
In solemn array they lay the wood upon the altar and the chief 
minister pours out the libation. The trumpets sound a mighty 
blast and the worshippers fall upon their faces and offer their 
supplications: 

"Then the singers made melody with their voices, 
And over the multitude sounded sweet harmony. 
The people of the Most High uttered their prayers 
In supplication before the All-pitying ; 
Until he ^ had completed the service of Yahweh, 
And had brought before Him that which was commanded. 
Then he came down and lifted his hands 
Over all the congregation of Israel, 
And the blessing of Yahweh was on his lips 
And in the name of Yahweh he made his boast. 
Yet a second time they prostrated themselves 
To receive the benediction from his lips."^ 

^ Ecclus. I'j'^'' '. 2 Simon is here the subject. 

^Ecclus. 50 ^'*-2i. The whole chapter is most interesting. 



432 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

In possession of this imposing liturgy and confident that it had 
a perfect rule of life revealed in the Tora, Judaism was reconcil- 
ing itself to the apparently insignificant place which it held 
in the economy of the world — is not consciousness of the favour 
of God more than worldly wealth and position ? And yet the 
faithful must sometimes have found it hard to hold fast to their 
belief. Their lot was not an enviable one. Our author himself 
betrays that life had many anxieties. There were, first of all, dan- 
gers to personal security. Our author's prayer for protection says 
in so many words that his life had been endangered by slander — 
*'an accusation to the king from an unrighteous tongue." ^ So 
serious was the situation that he despaired of life. In another 
passage he speaks of the frequent and dangerous journeys which 
he had undertaken. In the conflict between Syria and Egypt, 
the adherents of either kingdom might easily be in danger when 
the other party was in power. His grandson's final emigration 
to Egypt shows the necessity to which many Jews yielded in this 
period. Faithful to the Law and wandering over the face of the 
world — our author was a type of his race. 

The book of Proverbs adds almost nothing to the picture 
drawn for us by the son of Sirach. The book differs from the 
one we have been considering in that it represents several stages 
of growth and in that it has a pseudonym at its head. The body 
of the work is a collection of maxims which remind us of Sirach 
and which may be called somewhat more primitive in tone, 
though the point of view is substantially the same.^ This nucleus 
contains directions for a prudent life, based on the Law and 
ignoring speculation. The use of the name of Solomon must be 
judged as in the case of other books of the time. To show that 
the ancient kings of Israel were patrons of literature like the 
Ptolemies has already been seen to be one of the aims of the 
Jews in this period. This part of the book may be a century 
older than Ecclesiasticus. Some time after it w^as put into circu- 
lation it received as a preface the elaborate panegyric on wisdom 
which fills the first nine chapters of our text. This also reminds 
us of Sirach, though it is more elaborate. In it the personifica- 

^ Ecclus. 51 2. The whole chapter, which in tone reminds us of the Psalms, 
should be read. A prayer for the people is contained in 36 {;^;^) ^"^^ 

2 Prov. TO® — 22 ^^. The minor appendices to this collection, though inter- 
esting, give no additional light on the date. 



THE GREEK PERIOD 433 

tion of wisdom, even more distinctly than in Sirach, makes her an 
emanation of the divine : 

" Yahweh formed me as the beginning of His creation, 
The first of His works in days of yore. 
From of old was I fashioned, 
In the beginning at the origin of the earth. 
When there were no depths I was brought forth, 
When there were no fountains of water. 
Before the mountains were planted, 
Before the hills was I brought forth ; 
When He had not made the earth 
Nor the first of the clods of the world. 
When He established the heavens, I was there, 
When He marked off the horizon on the face of the deep. 

Then I was at His side as a master workman ; 
I was His delight day by day. 
Sporting before Him at every time 
Rejoicing at the completion of His world." * 

The advance in the thought as compared with Sirach (quoted 
above) is in the greater distinctness with which wisdom is 
affirmed to be the Demiurge — the executive officer of the supreme 
divinity. It is not possible to avoid seeing Greek influence 
here ; and that here is the germ of later Gnostic speculation, 
Jewish and Christian, is equally obvious. The writer, however, 
is far from the abstruse theology of a Philo. We have no reason 
to seek for allegories beneath his animated poetry. Monotheism 
is, of course, completely established. There is no longer a pos- 
sibility of other gods coming into competition with Yahweh. 
Yahweh's character also is known. He is a God of justice. His 
reward is given to the righteous and it is given in this life. God 
deals with the individual ; each is responsible to Him. But re- 
ward and punishment are not looked for beyond this life. Sheol 
continues to be the obscure abode of the shades, a place in which 
there is no opportunity to praise God. The duties of life are 
justice, temperance, social righteousness. The cultus seems to 
be taken as a matter of course. There is no mention of the 
Messiah. In all these respects the marks of date seem to be the 
same that we find in Sirach.^ 

^ Prov. 8 ^^2-27, 30 f Slight changes in the text may be justified from the com- 
mentaries cited below. 

' For this reason, as well as on linguistic grounds, recent scholars are pretty 



434 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

We have no reason to doubt that the author we have been 
considering agreed with Sirach in making the Jewish Law the 
text-book of ethics. The wisdom of God was therein embodied 
for the instruction of men. The natural result of this exaltation 
of a book was the increased importance of the guild of scribes, 
and also the greater prominence of meetings for instruction in t\\e 
life of the people. Some provision for making the Law known 
must have been made comparatively early. Deuteronomy com- 
mands that the Levites (though at long intervals) should read the 
Law to the people. This command was not carried out, so far as 
we know, before the exile. But in the time ofMalachi we found 
an allusion to gatherings in which those who were in earnest in 
obeying God talked to each other of the things of rehgion. The 
Chronicler gives an account of a great assembly at which the Law 
was read by Ezra and expounded by the Levites. This is in- 
deed an imaginative sketch, but it reflected an actual need of the 
people. As time went on the need became more pressing. The 
ancient language of Israel, in which the Law was written, was 
falling more and more into disuse. The Jews of Alexandria and 
other Hellenistic cities were learning Greek ; the Jews of Pales- 
tine and the eastern provinces were adopting Aramaic. In this 
state of affairs new methods of making the Law known were 
called for. The result was the development of what is called the 
synagogue. 

As religion is social in its working, it is very possible that the 
beginnings of the synagogue may go back to the time of the ex- 
ile. We learn from Ezekiel that the people frequently came 
about him to hear his revelations. Such informal gatherings 
were not allowed to worship in the strict sense of the word — for 
worship, that is, sacrifice, could be offered only at Jerusalem. But 
prayer and the study of the Law could not be confined to a single 
place. After it was thoroughly understood that the Law was 
Israel's rule of life, the Sabbath was improved in reading and 
studying this rule. The synagogues were primarily Sabbath 
schools. But they also became places of worship, because the 
congregation united in prayer before the lesson, and in thanks- 
giving after it. An important part of the service was the oral 

well agreed in putting the book in the Greek period. See Toy in the Inter- 
national Critical Commentary; Wildeboer in the Kurzer Handkommentar^ 
and Frankenberg in Nowack's Handkommentar. 



THE GREEK PERIOD 435 

exposition or exhortation delivered by one of the more compe- 
tent members of the congregation. It does not seem strained to 
suppose that the books of Jesus ben Sira and Proverbs are the 
condensed results of a lifetime of such exhortation. 

The importance of the synagogue was increased by the prom- 
inence given to city life in this period. In the composite 
city each nationality was allowed its own customs and a certain 
measure of autonomy. Even in towns where the Jews did not 
possess the full franchise they had recognised officers and courts 
chosen by themselves, administering the ancestral Law. The 
lines between civil and ecclesiastical life were not yet drawn; 
each community being both a religious and a political corpora- 
tion. This put a tremendous power of discipline into the hands 
of the chief men. The Chronicler assumes that this power was 
exercised in the time of Ezra/ for we read of a resolution that 
if any one should not come to the public assembly (called to 
consider the question of foreign marriages) " his property should 
be devoted, and he himself should be separated from the congre- 
gation of the captivity." In representing this as the method in 
Ezra's time, the author no doubt lets his wish become the father 
of his thought. Even for the Chronicler's own time it is doubt- 
ful whether a popular assembly at Jerusalem could go so far as 
to sequestrate a man's property without the consent of the civil 
governor. But any community may withdraw its intercourse 
from an obnoxious member, and the extent to which this was 
actually done by the Jews is evidenced by the Samaritan schism. 

The sum of the matter is this : During the period now under 
review the synagogue received its growth and became the centre 
of the social as well as of the religious life of the scattered Jew • 
ish, communities. It possessed, at any rate, the power of excom- 
munication, and in some instances it also inflicted civil pains and 
penalties. The importance of such an institution for the later his- 
tory of Judaism needs no demonstration. As to dates we can 
only say that it seems to be fully developed before the Maccabean 
uprising.^ 

^ Ezra, lo^, where the princes and elders are named as the administrative 
body. 

2 The whole subject is thoroughly discussed by Schurer, Gesch. des Jiid. 
Volkes, ' IT., p. 427 ff. where a considerable literature is cited. The Eng- 
lish translation of this work, made from the second German edition, gives 



43^ OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

The guild of scribes was glorified by the Chronicler in the per- 
son of Ezra. It is interesting to notice the satisfaction with 
which ben Sira dwells upon this vocation when he compares it 
with other vocations or trades. In contrast with the husband- 
man or artificer, who is compelled to put all his thought upon sor- 
did details, he who has leisure for study '' will seek out the wis- 
dom of the ancients." The object of his study is the Law of 
the Most High. He who devotes himself to this object shall 
not only serve before great men and appear before princes; he 
shall be called for in the public council, and shall be foremost 
in the congregation. The most natural interpretation of the 
language refers it to the opportunity of the preacher in the syna- 
gogue. What gave the order of scribes such prominence in the 
community was the teaching function which they exercised reg- 
ularly for the benefit of the people.^ 

The wisdom literature thus far considered, shows for the most 
part a complacent tone. The authors have disciplined them- 
selves by study, and do not expect too much of hfe. Their ethi- 
cal maxims give them a sufficient rule of life, and their faith in 
God and His Law serves as a working hypothesis of the universe. 
The world was not all they could wish it, but they were able to 
content themselves with tradition and the practical reason. There 
is in their utterances no evidence of internal conflict. But not all 
their contemporaries could rest within the limits which tradition 
and the practical reason fixed. This is startlingly brought home 
to us by the book which we call Ecclesiastes, and which calls 
itself Koheleth^ — one of the most remarkable monuments of He- 
brew literature. The author takes his stand on the tradition 
which makes Solomon the most prosperous and the wisest of 

substantially the same material, II, 2, p. 44 ff. Cf. also Bousset, Religion 
des Judentums im Neiitestamentlichen Zeitalter (1903), p. 149 ff. The in- 
scription already alluded to shows that a Jewish "place of prayer" existed 
in the vicinity of Alexandria as early as 222 B.C. Other inscriptions from 
the Delta show that Jewish synagogues existed there as early as 150 B.C. 
Cf. Wilamowitz in the Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie^ 1902, p. 
1093, and Willrich, Juden und Griechen, p. 151 ff, 
^ The praise of the scribe is contained in Ecclus. 38 ^^ — 39 ^K 
^ The name has given the commentators much trouble. Its connexion 
with Kahal {assembly or congregatioii) is obvious, but more cannot be said 
with certainty. The reader may examine Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 298 f., 
which gives all that can be said on the subject. 



THE GREEK PERIOD 43/ 

kings. In the person of this king he will set forth the experi- 
ence of humanity at its best. What is the result of this experi- 
ence? Only weariness. The text of the book, which is also the 
result of all the author's thinking and all his observation is : All 
is nothingness ! Absolute nothingness ! 

To prove this he recounts the experience of Solomon — under 
which we see his own experience thinly veiled. The first and 
most deadly thing in life is the eternal sameness of things. One 
generation follows another, the sun makes its round, the winds 
shift from one quarter to the other. But all this is only the 
rotation of a wheel, a continual grind without any real progress. 
A treadmill weariness lies over everything ; there is nothing of 
which one can say that it is new. The former generations have 
perished, and their history is forgotten ; so it shall be with those 
now on the stage, and with those that follow after, for ever. 

But if it be said this is the conclusion of an observer who 
stands on the outside and does not get at the heart of things, we 
will go into personal experience. Let a Solomon with unbounded 
resources taste all the alleged sweets of life. He comes through 
it all to the same conclusion — the nothingness of it all, and the 
uselessness of exertion. The pleasures of the • table, art and 
architecture, great public works, gardens, parks, a magnificent 
establishment, a harem of choice beauties — he has tried them all, 
and all are equally unable to give real satisfaction. Nor did in- 
tellectual pursuits — the supposed delights of study — give any- 
thing more : ''I gave my mind to know wisdom and knowledge 
and madness and folly ; ^ I discovered that this also is a striving 
after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he that 
increases knowledge increases pain." The reason of this is two- 
fold. First, man cannot attain real knowledge. It is God's 
plan that all man's striving shall in this regard be fruitless.^ In 
the second place, the wise man has no advantage from his wis- 
dom ; he lives no longer and he enjoys no more than the fool. 
One event happens to all. The wise man cannot even claim the 
poor advantage of a posthumous reputation, for all alike are in a 
little while forgotten. 

^ Things are known by their opposites. Hence he studied folly, so as to 
distinguish true wisdom. 

^This is most distinctly expressed in Eccles. 8^^^,, but compare also i^^, 
just quoted. 



438 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

The common opinion consoled itself with the thought that a 
man lives in his posterity. But this again is a delusion. How 
often do we see a wise man die and leave behind him a foolish 
son. Can there be consolation where there is such a possibility? 
Frequently enough we see a man toiling to gather wealth, deny- 
ing himself the comforts of life, in order that his children may 
be provided for. But it is in itself an evil that a man should 
postpone his enjoyment of what he has earned until it is too late. 
All that is certain is that the recurrence of times and seasons will 
undo all that has been done.^ The only good, if good we may 
call it, is that one should enjoy his little morsel while he may. 

Epicureanism is doubtless the logical outcome of this reason- 
ing, as is evident when we consider the next point. This is : 
The moral order of the world is not discoverable. The preva- 
lence of injustice is notorious. Were justice done, the righteous 
and wicked would change places. We are reminded of Job's 
contention that the wicked are the ones who prosper. The com- 
mon opinion piously consoles itself with the thought that God 
will surely judge. But this cannot be maintained (our author 
holds) — rather must we confess that God purposely lets injustice 
get the upper hand. His purpose is to show men that they are 
no better than the brutes. Who requires that the brutes shall be 
ruled with justice, so that the wolf shall be punished for his cru- 
elty and the lamb rewarded for his meekness ? Just as absurd 
would it be to insist that men should be treated on a different 
system. They are in the same class with the animals : '' All go 
to one place ; all are of dust and all return to dust. Who knows 
whether the spirit of man ascends, while the spirit of the brute 
goes below? "^ The author here touches upon the theory of a 
future life only to reject it. His conclusion is that of the pessi- 
mist — death is better than life because it delivers one from the 
weariness and pain of the struggle for existence. 

This pessimism is akin to that with which we are familiar in 
modern times. But the author is faithful to his Hebrew training 
in that he holds fast to the belief in God. This is perhaps 
easier to an oriental, to whom an absolute monarch is part of the 
constitution of things. God is the absolute ruler, and whatever 

^ This is the meaning of the passage about a time for everything, 3 ^~'. 
2 Eccles. 3 ^^"'•^^ Verse ^^ is evidently an interpolation, as is shown by 
Siegfried. As to the meaning of the passage there can be no doubt. 



THE GREEK PEiaOD 439 

comes to pass is willed by Him. But what His motive is, or on 
what principles He rules His universe, is beyond man's compre- 
hension. The acknowledgment of omnipotence as the leading 
divine attribute does not carry with it any recognition of justice 
or of love. The old covenant God of Israel has disappeared 
from view. We may say that the wider outlook has resulted in 
the practical shipwreck of the Jewish faith. The abstract belief 
that there is a God remains, but this is nothing in which the 
heart can rest. 

A volume expressing these views could not find a place among 
the sacred books of the Hebrews without modification. And so 
we find that the book has been annotated by a disciple of the old 
school.^ We may suppose the original author to have attained a 
reputation for wisdom, and that one of his pupils was so im- 
pressed by the value of his book that he thought to correct its 
errors by skilful insertions of his own. These insertions tone 
down the strong statements of the original writer or give them a 
turn less startling to the pious mind. Had not these additions 
been made, the reputation of Solomon would not have saved the 
book. With them included it may pass (and doubtless did pass) 
for the sage reflections of a penitent roue, such as Solomon was 
in popular tradition. Such a man might debate with himself on 
the problems of life, leaning now to one theory now to another, 
and as the book concludes with a strong exhortation to fear God 
and keep His commandments, its end was allowed to justify its 
eccentric means. 

In the variety of voices which it lets us hear, the book of Ec- 
clesiastes is almost a type of the period we have been discussing. 
The characteristic of the period is the confusion in the minds of 
men caused by the introduction of a new civilisation. We have 
seen that in some cases the result was a stouter affirmation of the 
old system. The insidious approaches of Hellenism caused the 
narrower Jews to shut themselves more closely within their ex- 
clusive system. Others responded to Gentile aggression by re- 
viving the Messianic hope. But to the more reflective minds 
Greek thought started problems to which they were able to find 

^ It is impossible to suppose that the contradictory assertions found in our 
present book of Ecclesiastes are written by the same man. The true state 
of the case is brought out by Siegfried's commentary, which distinguishes the 
documents by the use of different type. The result is illuminating. 



440 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

no adequate answer. Their speculative belief was indeed left 
untouched. It was not with them a question of many gods in 
place of the One. But what good did a philosophic theory of 
the oneness of God accomplish if the old feeling of Yahweh's 
covenant relation to Israel was gone ? In multitudes of Jewish 
minds the result of this conflict must have been this practical 
scepticism. An observer of the course of history at this time 
might have anticipated the fading out of vital Jewish religion. 
Fortunately for the future of that religion, and for Christianity as 
well, the process was disturbed by violent political events. By 
these the contradictions which were beginning to sink out of 
sight were again forced into prominence, and an entirely new 
direction was given to the history of Judaism. 



CHAPTER XIX 

A NEW HEROIC AGE 

Antiochus III, called the Great, obtained possession of Pales- 
tine by the battle of Paneas,^ B.C. 198. In the years that fol- 
lowed he extended his empire over the other dependencies of 
Egypt and over the greater part of Asia Minor. These successes 
made him dream of reconquering the territory that had belonged 
to Alexander. But when he went so far as to invade Europe, he 
came into conflict with the Romans. This rising power inflicted 
a crushing defeat upon him in the year 190 b.c.^ In conse- 
quence he was obliged to pay an enormous indemnity and to 
resign the greater part of his conquests. Syria was not directly 
affected. But the kingdom of the Seleucids was so weakened 
that its eastern provinces (always restive) found it easy to revolt. 
The kings of this line were from this time on almost constantly 
at war, while their need of money became chronic — both on 
account of these wars and because of the sums paid to the 
Romans. How their subjects were oppressed by the unceasing 
levies of taxes may be imagined. And in addition to the taxes 
the monarchs were compelled to resort to other devices. A 
favorite expedient was the plunder of some prominent temple. 
It was in an exploit of this kind that Antiochus the Great met 
his death.^ 

^ The town which still bears the name Banias is at the extreme northern 
end of Palestine, at the foot of Hermon. The large fountain which made 
the place sacred is one of the sources of the Jordan. On the site, see G. A. 
Smith, Historical Geography, ^ p. 473 ff. , Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiid. 
Volkes,^ II, p. 158 ff. The name in New Testament times was Cesarea 
Philippi. 

2 On the battle of Magnesia, cf. Mommsen, Romische Geschichte^, I, p. 748 
(Enghsh translation, II, p. 271 f.). 

' According to Mommsen, ibid, I, p. 750. There seems to be some con- 
fusion between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV. Both are said to have met 
their death in plundering a temple in Elymais. Cf. Polybius, XXXI, 11, 
and Josephus Ant., XII, g, i. 

441 



442 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Seleucus IV, who next came to the throne, does not especially 
concern this history. He was succeeded by his brother Antio- 
chus IV (Epiphanes) in the year 175 b.c.^ This monarch is 
described as one of those irresponsible and erratic characters 
who are not infrequently developed by the possession of power, 
and whose vagaries amuse, except when they distress, their sub- 
jects.^ So far as our history is concerned, his personal character 
is not much in evidence. Almost any king of his line might 
have acted as he did in the same circumstances. A certain levity 
in his treatment of a grave problem distinguished him from his 
predecessors — this is all that we can say. Whether he acted 
on the conviction attributed to the philosopher by a modern 
historian, that all religions are equally false, v/e do not know. 
He at any rate forgot that to the statesman all are equally 
useful. 

It was to be expected that the old quarrel between Egypt and 
Syria would break out again. Antiochus III had given his 
daughter Cleopatra in marriage to Ptolemy V (Epiphanes) and 
the Egyptians claimed that she was to receive Palestine as her 
dowry. The claim was resisted by Antiochus IV and war broke 
out in 173 B.C. Antiochus gained the advantage, invaded Egypt, 
and even besieged Alexandria.^ The king was called away by 
affairs of importance and did not obtain possession of the city. 
He went, however, to Jerusalem, where disorders had broken out. 
His real object was to raise money, and he had no scruples 
which would prevent his plundering the Temple of Yahweh, as 
he and his fathers had plundered other sanctuaries. We may 
suppose he made the disorders in the city an excuse for what he 
had already determined to do. 

^ On the chronology of the Seleucid period, cf. E. Meyer, Forsckungen 
zur alien Geschichte, II, p. 460 f. ; the dates are carefully reckoned by 
Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes^, I, pp. 165-179. 

2 See the description of Antiochus quoted from Polybius by Schiirer,^ I, 
p. 191 f. (English Transl., I, p. 199 f.). 

^ As to the question between the parties, it is sometimes held that the 
revenues of the district were alone in dispute. But possession and revenue 
usually go together, and the endeavour to separate them here seems to arise 
from a desire to harmonise Josephus's story of Joseph the taxgatherer {Ant., 
XII, 4) with the fact of Syrian supremacy in Palestine. But the story 
reproduced by Josephus is a romance of Samaritan origin ; cf . Willrich, 
Jiiden und Griechen, p. 99. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 443 

The disorders in Jerusalem are easily explained. The old 
party divisions had become acute in the Syrian and Egyptian 
rivalry. The stricter party, which was opposed to the encroach- 
ments of Greek culture because it brought Greek religion — this 
party was apparently favourable to the Egyptian as compared 
with the Syrian rule. We may suppose that the Egyptians gave 
them a larger measure of liberty. The laxer party, who were al- 
ready impressed by Greek culture, knew of Antiochus's desire to 
show himself the apostle of Hellenism and to bring his Jewish 
subjects out of their exclusiveness. It was only human nature to 
use this desire of his to further their own ambitions. The poht- 
ical head of the community was the high-priest — at this time 
Onias, a champion of the old order. Soon after his accession 
one Jason is said to have promised the king that if he (Jason) 
were made high-priest he would civilise the people and would also 
pay a larger tribute. Both promises appealed to the king and 
Jason was put in place of Onias. The new officer carried out 
his promise, first by erecting a gymnasium in which the people 
exercised after the Greek fashion. The new diversion became 
popular. Many even of the priests took their place in the arena. 
Some of the people even went so far as to obliterate their circum- 
cision by a surgical operation, that they might in all things be- 
come Greeks.^ What is meant by Jason's registering the inhabi- 
tants of Jerusalem among the citizens of Antioch is not altogether 
clear. '^ 

All this was, of course, an abomination to the stricter party, 
and they were not likely to confine themselves to merely verbal 
expression of their views. The Hellenising party were equally 
unscrupulous in repelling force with force. Onias was obliged to 
flee the city and his adherents suffered with him. Egypt was 
the natural refuge for those who were compelled to emigrate, and 
the Jewish colony at Alexandria received large accessions in this 
period. 

^ The nakedness of the gymnasts was in itself an offence to strict Jewish 
feeling ; and it exposed the tribal mark to ridicule. A sign of the increas- 
ing Hellenisation of the Jews is the number of Greek names that now 
appear in the history. The Jason mentioned above had changed his name 
from Joshua (or Jesus in our Greek texts). 

2 2 Mace. 4^; cf. Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiid. Volkes,"^ IT, p. 113, where 
evidence is given that the inhabitants of Ptolemais called themselves Anti. 
ochians. 



444 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

To promise an increase of tribute is so easy a way of getting 
an office that we are not surprised to find it tried again. One 
Menelaus displaced Jason by the same method which Jason had 
used against Onias. It seems certain that Menelaus was not of 
the high-priestly family. Jason, on the other hand, is said to 
have been a brother of the Onias whom he displaced. One was 
not any more willing to give up the dearly bought office than 
the other had been.^ After Menelaus had taken possession, and 
while Antiochus was busy in Egypt, Jason with a band of a 
thousand bravoes seized Jerusalem and shut Menelaus up in the 
citadel.^ 

It was on account of these tumults that Antiochus came to Je- 
rusalem. His real object was attained in that he had a pretext 
for plundering the Temple of its treasures, including its costly 
furniture.'^ The energetic protests of the people produced only a 
carnival of bloodshed. 

This was only the prelude. Two years later Antiochus again 
invaded Egypt. But in the interval the Romans had taken cog- 
nisance of the state of affairs. The Senate had passed a decree 
for the defence of Egypt, and Gaius Popillius Laenas was ap- 
pointed (with two others) to carry the decree to Egypt. The 
name of the Romans was a power in the East, and a son of 
Antiochus the Great had every reason to fear it. The uncivil 
but unmistakable injunction of Popillius was obeyed, and An- 
tiochus withdrew from Egypt — in no pleasant frame of mind we 
may suppose. Whether he personally appeared at Jerusalem at 
this time may be doubted. But his animus against the Jews soon 
appeared. He resolved that the Temple should be made a place 
of Greek worship. A small Greek altar was erected on the altar 
of burnt-offering. The god to whom sacrifice was to be offered 
is apparently Zeus, of whom Antiochus supposed himself to be 
an incarnation. Divine honours had been claimed by the earlier 

1 1 follow the tradition as given by 2 Maccabees and Josephus. But the 
reader must bear in mind that in this time of strife it is difficult to discover 
the actual course of events. Willrich {Jiiden und Griechen, p. 119) thinks 
that Jason was not high-priest at all but that Menelaus succeeded directly to 
Onias. 

2 2 Mace. 5 5' . 

^ I Mace. 1 2^-2*. The author mentions the golden incense altar, the can- 
delabrum, the shewbread table, the censers, bowls and saucers, the curtain, 
the garlands and the decorations on the front of the Temple. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 44S 

members of the Seleucid line in imitation of Alexander. ^ What 
was new in Antiochus's measures was the force brought to bear 
upon the recalcitrant. 

Upon the new altar swine were sacrificed and the priests were 
obliged to eat of the sacrificial flesh. All inhabitants of Jerusa- 
lem were to conform to the new rites on pain of death. To pre- 
vent a revolt, the city walls were razed and a strong Syrian gar- 
rison was placed in the citadel. ^ To insure thorough work, a 
travelling commission was sent to all the towns of Judea in order 
to compel conformity to the new ordinances. Possession of 
books of the Law and observance of the Sabbath were punished 
with death. Mothers were executed for having circumcised their 
children. Greek altars were erected everywhere, and the heads 
of families were called upon to worship at them under penalty of 
death. 

The measures adopted show that the king and his counsellors 
did not understand the Hebrew religion. No others of his sub- 
jects refused to adopt (at least outwardly) the cultus commanded 
by the king. The exclusiveness of the Hebrew faith was to the 
Greek mind of the day incomprehensible. It was interpreted as 
sheer obstinacy or as hatred of the human race. A Greek author 
recounts that Antiochus penetrated to the Most Holy chamber of 
the Temple ; that there he found a statue of a long-bearded man 
riding upon an ass ; that he supposed this statue to represent 
Moses who founded Jerusalem and gathered the people into it, 
and who gave them their misanthropic and vicious laws. The 
same author goes on to tell how the king, to show his hatred of 
such inhumanity, resolved to eradicate such customs ; he there- 
fore sprinkled the statue and the great altar with the blood of 
swine slain in sacrifice, sprinkled the sacred books with broth 
of swine's flesh, compelled priests and other Jews to eat of 
these sacrifices, and extinguished the ever-burning lamp of the 

^ Cheyne {Ettcyclop. Biblica, I, col. 23) supposes that a statue of Zeus 
was also erected in the Temple. But nothing is said of this in the Jewish 
account either of the desecration or of the rededication. On Antiochus' de- 
votion to Zeus Olympios, see Nestle, Marginalien, p. 42, and in the Zeit- 
schr. fiir die Alttest. Wissensch., IV, p. 248. 

"^ Winckler ingeniously supposes that the city was dedicated to Epiphanes 
and that it received the name Epiphaneia. For this, however, we have no 
historical evidence ; see Schrader, Keilinschriften und altes Testament, ^ 
p. 303- 



44^ OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Temple. ^ This account is an endeavour to defend the measures 
of Antiochus. It shows first the inability of the Greek mind to 
comprehend the imageless worship of the Jews. They were sure 
that the ancient fane must have some material object of worship, 
and the more grotesque they could make this, the better it would 
account for the Jews' denial of its existence. For the worship- 
pers of such an idol to refuse to bow to the Olympian Zeus 
would be obstinacy indeed. On this theory the measures of 
Antiochus were justified — how else could the resistance of the 
barbarians to a beneficent reform be broken down ? 

From the point of view of the author of the persecution the 
measures taken were well chosen. These measures thoroughly 
polluted priests and people — that is, made them unfit for the 
service of Yahweh. If the divine choice of place could be nul- 
lified by human action, this was the way to nullify it. The 
altar erected in the sacred court was indeed a desolating aboini- 
Jiation. ^ It drove Yahweh away and desecrated (deconsecrated) 
the place of His dwelling. 

Experience shows that the sacredness of an ancient site cannot 
thus be destroyed. People who have a living faith in their God 
know that His will cannot permanently be thwarted by human 
action. But great distress of mind must have been caused (in 
the case before us) to many faithful worshippers of Yahweh. 
Some of these were ready to acknowledge that the desecration 
was an accomplished fact. They argued that the desecration 
itself showed that Yahweh had deserted His land and Temple, as 
He had done once before. What could the faithful do except 
flee from a land thus accursed ? The high-priest Onias had been 
compelled to leave the country. He was the sole repository of 
sanctity and became the rallying point for exiled believers. In 
these circumstances it was easy for him to feel that he had the 
responsibility of providing a new centre of worship for his 
countrymen. We may therefore with some probability attribute 
to him the erection of a new Jewish Temple at Leontopolis in 
Egypt. Later Judaism was inclined to discredit this sanctuary 

^ Diodorus Siculus, Book xxxiv, quoted by Willrich, Juden icnd Griechen, 
p. 62. 

2 This curious phrase (Dan. II^^ 12 ^^ i Mace, i ^"') is a play upon the 
name Lord of Heaven; see the note of Nestle, Zeitschr. f. d. Alttest. Wis- 
sensch., IV, p. 248. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 44/ 

and so its origin and history are veiled in obscurity.^ But of 
Onias's good faith in the matter we need have no doubt. The 
temple and its services were probably modelled after the one at 
Jerusalem ; it was surrounded with a heavy wall ; it had a con- 
siderable staff of ministers. We know that it was frequented by 
the Jews for over two hundred years and that it accumulated a 
considerable treasure.^ After the recovery and rededication of 
the Jerusalem sanctuary, an awkward situation arose for the de- 
votees of the one in Egypt. But as they encouraged themselves 
by a prophecy attributed to Isaiah, they may have cherished the 
broader anticipations which are expressed in some other pro- 
phetic passages.^ If Malachi could say that a pure offering is 
brought to Yahweh even on heathen altars, it could hardly be 
wrong to worship at a sanctuary built for His worship, though 
outside of Jerusalem. But this faint attempt at a larger com- 
prehension had no appreciable effect on later thought. 

In Judea the situation was as desperate as can well be im- 
agined. The walls were razed, the houses were burned, those in- 
habitants who showed signs of adhering to the ancestral religion 
were put to death. The new citadel was occupied by a garrison 
strong enough to quell any attempt at opposition. All that 
seemed left to the little company of faithful Jews was the oppor- 
tunity to die for their faith. This opportunity many of them em- 
.braced with fervour. But not all were content with passive resist- 

' Josephus has several references to this temple and it is impossible to ac- 
cept them all as historical. In Aitt., XIII, 3, he takes occasion to discredit it 
by saying that it was built in a place full of animals sacred to the Egyp- 
tians (and therefore unclean to the Jews) ; and also that it was built upon 
the foundation of an old Egyptian temple. In one place {Jewish War, I, 1) 
this author ascribes the temple to Onias III (the one displaced by Jason), 
in another to an alleged Onias IV, son of Onias III. I have assumed that 
the former was correct, as the temple would most probably be projected 
during the time when the Jerusalem Temple was desecrated. Cf. Bathgen 
in Zeitschr. f. d. Alttest. Wissensch., VI, p. 277 ff.; Willrich, Juden tmd 
Griechen, p. 126 ff. 

"^ On the site, cf. Schiirer, Geschichie des Jiidischen Volkes,^ III, p. 97 
If the builder of this temple were Onias III, the account of the high-priest's 
murder in 2 Mace. 4 ^^-^^ is incorrect. In fact, the account is full of improba- 
bilities, as is shown by Willrich and Bathgen in the discussions cited above. 

^Isaiah 19^®.' is undoubtedly a late insertion in the text; but I cannot 
persuade myself that it was written on purpose to justify the Onias temple ; 
cf. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, p, 99 ff. 



448 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ance. One day the king's commissioners came to Modein, a 
small place located in the edge of the hills just above Lydda.^ 
The chief man of the village was Mattathias, a priest, a man ad- 
vanced in years, and the father of five sons, all of whom had grown 
to manhood. Summoned by the royal officers to take the lead 
in the sacrifice, he refused ; and when one of his neighbours con- 
sented to set the example, his righteous indignation broke out 
and he hewed the renegade upon the altar before which he stood. 
The outburst was directed against the unfaithful Jew, but when 
the overt act was committed it would be folly to pause or attempt 
a compromise. Mattathias, therefore, with his sons and kinsmen 
fell upon the Syrians and cut them to pieces. Thus was the 
standard of revolt definitely raised. 

As we have had occasion to note more than once in the course 
of our history, Palestine is a country that offers faciHties for 
guerilla warfare. The little band of rebels under Mattathias had 
no difficulty in finding temporary safety in the hills of Judea. 
Here they were joined by fugitives from other towns. A band 
of such fugitives was already wandering in the region. These, 
however, were so faithful to the Law that when attacked by the 
soldiers on the Sabbath they would not violate the sacred day by 
making resistance. They were therefore cut down to the last 
man, or rather to the last child, for women and children were 
with them. The report of what had taken place made Matta- 
thias and his band reflect upon the relation of the Law to their 
necessity, and they resolved that they would not follow this unfor- 
tunate example ; if attacked on the Sabbath they would defend 
themselves, though they would not take the offensive on that day. 
The band obtained some successes, which gave them a reputa- 
n, and they were strengthened by the Chasidim — ''every 
one who gave himself freely to the Law." The party thus 
named ^ is mentioned at a later period. It was composed of 
men who made the strict observance of the Law their first con- 
cern, and who, so long as this observance was not made impracti- 

^ On the site, cf. Schiirer, Gesch. des Jiidischen Volkes,^ I, p. 201 f.; G. 
A. Smith, Historical Geography,^ p. 212. That Mattathias was a priest is 
doubted by some. 

' I Mace. 2 *^; our version gives the name in the form Assideans. But the 
Hebrew form Chasidim meets us in the Psalms ; cf. Cheyne, Origin and 
Religious Contents of the Psalter, p. 56. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 449 

cable, were opposed to political action of any kind. They were 
driven to fight in the present exigency just because the observance 
of the Law was made impracticable. As soon as any civil power 
was found to allow them the exercise of their religion they ceased 
fighting. For the time being they added strength to the little 
band of rebels. 

Strength comes by action and the outlaws soon became 
aggressive. They visited the towns which had been forcibly 
Hellenised, destroyed the heathen altars, punished the renegades, 
compelled the circumcision of children whose parents had been 
forced by the Syrians to leave them uncircumcised. In all 
this their quarrel was primarily with the unfaithful Jews, and, 
throughout, the enmity of the two Jewish parties for each other 
furnished the motive for the struggle. Mattathias, already an 
old man, did not long live to share the dangers of the contest. 
As he felt his end approaching he exhorted his followers to con- 
tinued zeal for the Law. He advised that his son Simon be the 
leader because of his sound judgment, but that Judas ^ be the 
military chieftain because of his approved valour. It was evident 
that for the moment the heavier work fell upon Judas. 

The Syrian government had no reason to suppose that the 
troublesome band was more than an ordinary troop of robbers. 
The officer in command in the district was one Apollonius.^ 
Gathering what force was available, he marched out, intending to 
put an end to the insurrection. But Judas fell upon him, killed 
him and a large part of his soldiers and put the rest to flight. 
The booty of weapons was very welcome to the ill-armed Jews. 
Judas's share was the sword of Apollonius, which he carried from 
this time till his death. 

The engagement was in itself of no great importance. But it 
encouraged the Jews, and they soon had opportunity to show 
that they were made of no common stuff. Seron, general of the 
army, called out all the forces of the province and marched into 
Judea. A pitched battle was fought on the ground where Israel 

^ Called the Maccabee, from whom the whole party receives the name 
Maccabeans. The origin and meaning of the name are obscure — the Hajn- 
mer and the Extinguisher both have their advocates. 

2 Perhaps the tax-gatherer who had once deceived and plundered the 
Jerusalemites, i Mace, i '^^, 2 Mace. 5 ^^ His headquarters were in Samaria, 
I Mace. 3^0. 



450 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

had defeated its enemies in the old days/ and history repeated 
itself. The Syrians are said to have had eight hundred men 
slain. Things were evidently getting serious. Antiochus was 
about marching to the East, where also there was a serious out- 
break and so could not meet the crisis in person, but he left 
orders with his prime minister, Lysias, to make thorough work 
in Judea. 

The force at Lysias' s disposal is said to have been forty thou- 
sand men. They marched down the coast under the command 
of three generals — Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias. When they 
encamped at Emmaus in the edge of the hill country,^ they were 
joined by a large number of slave dealers who expected to buy 
the captives which should be taken by the soldiers. Judas and 
his followers assembled at Mizpah, which had served for a refuge 
in earlier times of distress.^ Here they fasted in sackcloth and 
ashes, wept, and implored the help of Yahweh. Before heaven 
they spread out the copies of the Law which the enemies had 
defiled by painting idolatrous symbols upon them ; they pointed 
to the priestly garments which could no longer be used, and the 
Nazirites who could not complete their vows while the Temple 
was desecrated. Then the troops were reviewed in regular mili- 
tary order, and everything was got ready for the battle which 
was expected the next day. Just then the spies brought news 
that one of the generals, Gorgias, was marching with a flying 
column to a night attack. Judas took a quick resolve, and 
turned the tables on the enemy. With three thousand men he 
marched to the plain and attacked the main army, unsuspicious 
in its tents. The surprise was complete. The encampment was 
thrown into confusion, and after a brief resistance fled. Judas 
kept his men well in hand, so as to confront the detachment 
which had marched into the bills. These troops having searched 
the hills without result, came back weary and footsore only to 
find their own camp in possession of the enemy. In their dis- 
may they scarcely made a stand before the impetuous attack of 
Judas, and their flight made his victory complete. An enor- 
mous booty was taken by the Jews, and the Syrian slain are 
by the Jewish writer reckoned at three thousand. 

1 At Beth-horon, i Mace. 3 ^6; cf. Josh. 10 ^^f 

2 On the location, see Schiirer, Geschichte des Jild. Volkes,^ II, p. 183. 
^ In the days of Jeremiah, Jer. 40. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 45 1 

Thoroughly alarmed, Lysias now ordered out all the troops at 
his command and marched with them in person. The previous 
attempts had shown that the approach from the maritime plain 
to Judea gave the Jews an advantage, because the passes were 
easily defended by an inferior force. This time, therefore, a 
different route was chosen. The southern part of the hill coun- 
try — the traditional territory of Judah — was now in the hands of 
the Edomites. They could be depended upon to assist the king's 
army against their hereditary enemies, the Jews. Lysias there- 
fore marched down the plain till he reached this Edomite terri- 
tory. Here he ascended the hills and turned northward toward 
Jerusalem. Advancing beyond Hebron the army camped at 
Beth-zur, an old stronghold of Judah. ^ Here Judas, whose forces 
had grown to ten thousand men, attacked them and inflicted 
such losses that Lysias thought it imprudent to continue the 
campaign. He therefore retired to Antioch to enlist more mer- 
cenaries, leaving Judas temporarily in possession of the district. 
In the three years which had elapsed since the profanation of the 
Tem[)le the Jews had been uniformly successful, and nothing was 
now in the way of their asserting their title to Jerusalem. The 
citadel was indeed too strong for them to storm ; but they were 
able to hold it in check, and to take possession of city and 
Temple. 

We must now pause a moment in the narrative, to consider an 
interesting literary monument of just this period. This is the 
book of Daniel, which we see at once to be different in form 
from the prophetical books with which (in our version though 
not in the Hebrew) it is classed. It is, in fact, one of the books 
which we call apocalypses, of which we have one in each part of 
our Bible. We know also of others which have not been re- 
ceived into the Canon of Scripture. In these books the author 
writes under the name of some hero of antiquity. He transports 
himself in imagination to the alleged writer's time, and makes 
him see in vision that which is to come to pass. These visions 
simply clothe history in the form of prediction till they reach 
the time of the real author. They then change their tone and 

' 2 Chron. ii'^, where, however, the Chronicler transfers the state of 
things in his own day to the time of Rehoboam. The account in i Macca- 
bees assumes that the territory south of Beth-zur was Edomite (Idumean), 



452 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

set forth the expectation of divine interference in the history of 
the world — for these compositions look for the consummation of 
all things in the immediate future. 

The best proof of this characterisation is the example given by 
the book of Daniel itself. The key to the book is the detailed 
description which fills its last three chapters. Here we have a 
vision in which Daniel receives from an angel an account of what 
is to come to pass. The starting-point is the third year of Cyrus, 
which means his third year as King of Babylon.' The author 
announces that after Cyrus three kings of Persia shall arise, after 
which shall come a mighty king — evidently Alexander the Great, 
The kingdom, however, will not pass to his heirs "but will be 
divided into four. The fortunes of two of these divisions (Syria 
and Egypt) are then taken up. The author knows of the al- 
liance cemented by the marriage of Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy 
Philadelphus, to Antiochus Theos. He also knows of the ill-suc- 
cess which followed this marriage and of the invasion of Syria by 
the next Ptolemy. Ten verses are given to the reign of Antiochus 
the Great, whose career made a deep impression in the East.^ 
His successor, Seleucus Philopator, is dismissed with a single verse 
and then Antiochus Epiphanes comes into view. This monarch's 
seizure of the throne is alluded to and his two campaigns against 
Egypt are described. He is said to be checked by ships of Chit- 
tim, by which the Romans are intended. The author then goes 
on : 

" And he shall be angry against the holy covenant and 
shall do his will and shall have regard to those who for- 
sake the holy covenant. And forces sent by him shall pre- 
vail and shall defile the sanctuary, and they shall abolish the 
daily sacrifice and set up the Desolating Abomination. And 
he will seduce by flattery those who bring guilt upon the cov- 
enant people ; but a company that know their God shall be 
strong and shall act ; and the instructors of the people shall 
give understanding to many ; and they shall fall by sword 
and by fire, by captivity and by plunder for someda\^s. And 

1 Dan. lo \ The unfortunate division into chapters (and paragraphs in 
the Hebrew) makes 1 1 ^ give another date. But the text is there corrupt ; 
of. Bevan's commentary (1892). 

^ Dan. II ^"-^^. In v. i*we have an indication that in the time of Antiochus 
the Great a party in Jerusalem attempted to set up the Messianic kingdom 
by force of arms. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 453 

when these are falling they shall be helped a little ; and many 
shall attach themselves to them treacherously. And some of 
the instructors shall fall, in order to test them and to cleanse 
them and to make them white until the time of the end." ^ 

This passage reveals to us the iuner thought of theChasidim in 
the midst of the Maccabean movement. To them the desecration 
of the Temple was the first act in the great drama of the end. 
The birth-pangs of the Messianic age had already set in. But the 
main scenes of the drama were not to be displays of human 
power. The Maccabean uprising was regarded as only a trifling 
help ; those who took part in it did not all belong to the strictest 
party and were counted as hypocrites. The believer's consola- 
tion was the thought that the death of the scribes was only a 
part of the purifying work which must go on a little longer. 

What the faithful were looking for was a signal and direct in- 
tervention of God Himself. This seemed called for by the un- 
paralleled wickedness of Antiochus. With a levity that the 
Hebrew mind could not comprehend, this king had abandoned 
the household god of the Seleucids and devoted himself to an- 
other and foreign divinity — nay, he even claimed divine honours 
for himself. ^ This would seem to fill the cup of his iniquities up 
to the brim. 

On this ground we have the prediction which follows. In 
the immediate future the new era will dawn. Antiochus is to 
make one more invasion of Egypt and this country will come 
completely into his power. He will then return to Palestine 
and camp " between the sea and the mountains of holy beauty " 
— that is, in the Philistine plain, where his armies had .so often 
been seen. But here he will meet complete destruction. 

The conflict of the nations will be accompanied by a conflict 
between the heavenly powers. Michael, the patron angel of 
Israel, will defend the cause of truth. Great trouble may be 
expected to accompany these celestial conflicts, but at the end 
the true Israel — every one found written in the book of the 
divine ap[)roval— will be delivered. Then will come a resur- 

1 Dan. II =^0-35 

^ This seems to be the plain meaning of ii ^^ — " he shall magnify himself 
above every god " Nestle points out that in the. coins of Antiochus, Apollo 
(up to that time the patron deity of the Seleucids) gives place to Zeus 
Olympios. 



454 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

rection of those who sleep ; the martyrs for the truth who were 
not permitted to see the reward of their steadfastness will be 
raised to an eternal life. Those sinners and oppressors who were 
not punished for their misdeeds will be raised, in order to be con- 
demned to a life of shame and misery. The teachers of the Law 
will then shine like the brightness of the firmament. All this 
will take place three years and a half after the desecration of 
the Temple by the foreign altar — therefore in the immediate 
future of the writer.^ 

I have given this vision at some length because it furnishes 
the key to the rest of the book. For the other visions present 
us with the same theory of history. The succession of worldly 
monarchies, whether represented by the image seen by Nebuchad- 
rezzar, or by the four beasts, or by only the ram and he-goat, 
culminates in the Greek empire, of which Antiochus is the 
last and most ungodly representative. He is the little horn 
which becomes great, exalts itself against the host of heaven, 
and even attacks the Most High.^ But in each case we are 
shown that when at the height of his power he is to be over- 
thrown — ''without hands shall he be broken" — that is, by 
direct divine intervention. More dramatically his fate is shown 
in another passage where the judgment-seat is occupied by the 
Ancient of Days, the books are brought and the assizes are 
held.' For his blasphemies the accused is found guilty, his 
empire is destroyed, and the supremacy is given to the people of 
the Most High. 

It is interesting to note how the author came to fix upon three 
years and a half as the duration of the persecution. His whole 
calculation is set before us by himself. The books of the 
prophets were to him the repositories of heavenly secrets. In 
them he read that the captivity was to last seventy years. But 
he was only too certain that this prediction had not been liter- 
ally fulfilled. Israel was still scattered among the nations; the 

^ The period of three years and a half seems clearly defined in 12 '. The 
later data (1290 and 1335 days, 12 ^^^O are additions to the text. ThelijO 
days (2300 evenings and mornings) of 8 ^* indicate that the earlier expecta- 
tion differed somewhat from the later. 

^ Dan. 8 ^^. Blasphemies against the God of Heaven are intended ; cf. 
Moore in the Journal of Biblical Literature, XV (i8g6), p. 193 ff. 

* Ibid., 7^-1*. That the 07ie like a man in this passage does not mean an 
individual Messiah seems certain. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 455 

promised glory of Jerusalem had not appeared, but something 
far different. By a course of reasoning which is not difficult 
for us to follow, he multiplied the original seventy by seven — 
perhaps on the basis of what he supposed to be indications of 
Scripture.^ The seventy weeks of years thus given are divided 
into three periods. First comes a week of weeks, or jubilee 
period of forty-nine years, lasting from the fall of Jerusalem to 
the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, or, more probably, to the 
installation of Joshua as high-priest. From this point the second 
main period of sixty-two weeks extends to what we may call the 
beginning of the end. The end itself covers the last seven years, 
which begin with the deposition of Onias. This period is di- 
vided into two halves — the first from the deposition of Onias, 
down to the desecration of the Temple by the heathen altar. 
The second half is the period of intensest persecution; when it 
has expired the promises are to be fulfilled.^ 

The unavoidable conclusion is that the author wrote during 
this period of intensest persecution and not long before the re- 
dedication of the Temple. We are now able to understand the 
stories of the first half of the book. That these stories have some 
historical or traditional basis is probable. But as they now stand 
they have been rewritten with the purpose of stimulating faith and 
steadfastness among those who were enduring the Antiochean 
persecution. Nebuchadrezzar or Belshazzar or Darius, each of 
these kings as he appears in the book, is simply the projection 
of Antiochus Epiphanes into an earlier time. Daniel in the 
king's palace refusing to eat the king's dainties because they are 
unclean is an example of what every Jew should do when tempted 
by threat or invitation to eat meat sacrificed to idols. The Ne- 
buchadrezzar of the story erected a golden idol' to which all people 
must render worship. The three young Jews gave a fine example 
of fidelity to conscience when they refused. So did Daniel when 

^ Bevan points to Lev. 26 ^^' 2^' where Israel is threatened with a seven- 
fold punishment, and to v. ^* ^•' where it is said the land shall keep her sab- 
baths. Combining these, the author supposed seventy sabbatical years (or 
periods) to be intended. See also 2 Chron. 36^'. 

* It is not surprising that the author's chronology is far from exact ; see 
Schiirer, Gesch. des Jiid. Volkes, ^ III., p. 189 f. 

' So did Antiochus, as is pointed out by Nestle, Marginalien, p. 35 f. We 
have no evidence that the real Nebuchadrezzar ever exercised compulsion in 
the matter of religion. 



45^ OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Darius forbade the exercise of his religion. The lesson of the stories 
is steadfastness under persecution. 

And another lesson of these stories is the mutability of hu- 
man affairs. The mightiest monarchs and the greatest empires 
are in the hands of God. He is able to overthrow them and to 
punish their iniquities. In one chapter we have Nebuchadrez- 
zar, the ruler of the world, smitten with a brutish madness, and 
on his recovery acknowledging the unique power of the God of 
Heaven. ^ In another, Belshazzar when desecrating the sacred 
vessels by his orgies is suddenly hurled to destruction. The 
great dream which Daniel alone is able to expound shows how 
the kingdoms have succeeded one to the other, to give place at 
last to the rule of the people of the Most High. And in all this 
it is not human might or human wisdom that works. It is 
God who by His direct interposition pulls down one and sets up 
another, and compels the heathen rulers to acknowledge His 
power. This is the author's expectation for the future — not the 
courage of the Maccabees nor the revolt of the whole people will 
effect any substantial improvement. Until God intervenes, en- 
durance is the best thing for the believer. 

This programme of the Chasidim shows more distinctly than 
anything else the division in feeling among the people. The 
Maccabean party were ready to fight; the Chasidim would fight 
under strong provocation, but they had little confidence in the 
arm of flesh. One question must have given them trouble : Why 
had not God intervened before this? If God is really the unique 
and all-powerful ruler of the universe it is strange that He should 
allow such a state of things as we see in the universe about us — 
idolatry, crime, oppression. The problem is the old one con- 
sidered by the book of Job and also by Ecclesiastes. The author 
of Job thought it insoluble. All that he affirms is that the Ruler 
of the universe has many great and varied interests in His charge, 
and that we can trust Him to manage them wisely, though He does 
not do it in the interest of what we call justice. The author of 
Ecclesiastes also finds the problem insoluble. In his view the 

^ Daniel, 4. The vagaries of Epiphanes probably gave rise to a rumour of 
his insanity. The description of the madness seems to go back to the 
strange Babylonian figure of Ea-bani. See the myth translated by Jensen 
in the Keilinschr. Bibliothek, VI, p. 12 (Pinches, in the Proceedings of the 
Society of Bib. Arch., gives the name in the form Ea-du). 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 457 

divine government makes no difference between man and ani- 
mals. The piety of the Chasidim forbade them to adopt such 
an answer. Their soUition is made known by some indications 
in the book of Daniel. Briefly, we may say that the blame for 
the present condition of things is laid upon the angels. 

We saw in the time of the rebuilding of the Temple how the 
angels came into view as the organs of revelation and also as ad- 
ministrators of the divine government. Zechariah and his con- 
temporaries conceived the universe to be organised on the plan 
of the Persian monarchy. The various provinces were under the 
government of angelic satraps, who had a considerable measure 
of autonomy. Angels were not unknown to the earlier Hebra- 
ism. The angel of Yahweh was the bearer of messages to the 
heroes of old.^ But he had only a temporary commission and 
was reabsorbed in the divine essence or unmasked himself as 
Yahweh in person. But w^hen the greatness of the world became 
better known, and when the thought of the people elevated Yah- 
weh above all other beings, then His train of attendants became 
more important. In the large and loosely conglomerated king- 
dom of Syria it was easy for the governor of a province to disre- 
gard or evade commands of the supreme monarch. It was easy 
to lay upon these subordinates the blame for injustice and oppres- 
sion. The viceroys were moved by their own desires or pas- 
sions ; they might even go so far as to make war upon each other 
in disregard of the king's peace. 

It was not difficult to transfer this state of things to the world 
at large. The angelic viceroys might have selfish ends and pur- 
sue them for a time in disregard of the Sovereign's wishes. The 
book of Daniel assumes that this is the case. Gabriel is com- 
missioned to bring a revelation to Daniel. The angel who pre- 
sides over the destinies of Persia does not wish to have Daniel 
favoured in this way and forcibly restrains him. Michael, the 
viceroy of the Jewish people, comes to Gabriel's help so that he 
is able to deliver his message (though the delay amounts to 
three weeks), and after executing the commission he expects to 
encounter again the angel of Persia and the angel of Greece. 

It is plain that if these angel viceroys are so bold as to oppose 
Gabriel on an errand to which he is directly commanded by 

^ The instances of Gideon and Manoah (Judg. 6 ^^ 13 2) will occur to 
everyone. 



458 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

God, they will not scruple to encourage their human clients to 
all sorts of violence against Israel. On the theory that they do 
so encourage them, the present condition of the world can be 
explained — though at the expense of the divine efficiency. The 
behever might be supposed to find small comfort in the thought 
that the heavenly rule is at loose ends like the Seleucid adminis- 
tration. But there is always in reserve the thought that this is 
only a temporary arrangement. The patience of Yahweh bears 
with misrule for the present age. Just ahead is another period 
of the world's history — the heavenly kingdom is already prepared 
in heaven.^ Yahweh will shortly set it up upon the earth, will 
punish the unruly satraps, and will give His own people power 
over their enemies. It is plain that we have here not only en- 
couragement for the time of persecution but the germ of doctrines 
which were more fully developed a little later. ^ 

Because of the encouragement which it gave in the time of 
persecution, and perhaps because a partial fulfilment of its hopes 
seemed to come soon after its publication, the book of Daniel at- 
tained currency and credit at once. Because of the theory of his- 
tory which it formulates, it has been one of the most influential 
books ever written. In every time of persecution its assertion that 
the world power now triumphant must soon give way to a better 
state of things, has appealed to the sufferers. Its expectation that 
the kingdom of God will shortly appear, has been renewed at 
every such period. This we see from Enoch and the New Testa- 
ment Apocalypse, as well as from numerous other writings which 
have survived in whole or in part to our own time. The book of 
Daniel, moreover, gave form to the dualistic theory which has so 
widely prevailed in the Synagogue, as in the Church. Alexan- 

^ The stone cut out without hands (Dan. 2 ^*) prefigures the heavenly city 
of later apocalypses. 

- How far Persian religion has influenced Jewish writers in this period is 
not yet clearly made out. It is plain that a principle of evil (like Ahriman) 
is not yet fully recognised. But these rebellious angel-satraps fall little 
short of the rebel angels of Enoch and of the New Testament. The reader 
may consult Stave, Ueber den Einjliiss des Parsis??ius atif das Judentum 
(1898). 

I have treated the book of Daniel as a unit. Even if composite, we can- 
not date its elements very far apart in point of time. Some evidences of 
compilation are pointed out by Barton, Journal of Bib. Lit., XVII, pp. 
62-86. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 459 

der's career gave men the thought of a universal empire. But 
such an empire under a heathen ruler like Antiochus Epiphanes 
is the negation of all pious ideals. It is the kingdom of Satan, 
Hence we find the sharp opposition between the world and the 
Church, between the present age and the coming age, which 
passed from Judaism into Christian theology, and which received 
its classical expression in Augustine's treatise on the City of God. 
Nebuchadrezzar, or Alexander, or Antiochus, or Nero became 
in this theory the Antichrist, who in the last great struggle which 
is to usher in the kingdom of God, will be vanquished.^ But 
we must now return to the Maccabean era. 

The pious were willing to meet death at the hands of their 
persecutors in the hope that the kingdom of God was shortly to 
appear. The Maccabeans chose to serve God by active resist- 
ance to wrong — " with the high praises of God in their mouth, 
but a two-edged sword in their hand." And Yahweh certainly 
seemed to smile upon them. Success beyond human expecta- 
tion had crowned their arms. The holy city was again theirs 
and they could restore their sanctuary to its legitimate uses. 
The restoration was taken in hand with scrupulous care. The 
Temple area was cleansed by the removal of everything that 
could suggest the intruded heathenism. A perplexity was en- 
countered in dealing with the old altar of burnt-offering. Orig- 
inally consecrated to Yahweh, it had been defiled by the erection 
of the altar of Zeus upon it. Did the old consecration persist 
even through the profanation ? To be on the safe side, the 
workmen (priests alone were allowed to take part in the work) 
tore the altar down, but instead of casting out the stones they 
carefully laid them up on the Temple mount until a prophet' 
should arise to tell what should be done with them.^ The sen- 
tence is instructive. It shows the consciousness that prophetic 
inspiration was no longer granted. It shows also that questions of 
what was sacred and what profane had assumed a prominent place 
in people's thoughts. 

^ The influence of Alexander's career on subsequent ages is very marked, 
but cannot be further traced here. A considerable literature is in existence 
on the subject, the latest discussion being Kampers Alexander der Grosse 
und die Idee des Welthnperiiims (1901). 

2 Mace. 4*®. The author of Chronicles seems to have had no doubt that 
the vessels sent back by Cyrus were fit for sacred use. 



460 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

All things having been set in order, the daily burnt-offering 
was resumed on the morning of the twenty -fifth day of the ninth 
month, 165 B.C. It was just three years after the beginning of 
the desecration. So important an event should be marked in 
some special way, and the popular assembly agreed that it should 
be commemorated yearly by a festival — the Feast of Dedication,^ 
which has been observed by the Jews to the present time. 

Success did not blind Judas to the difficulties of the situation. 
The citadel of Jerusalem was still in the hand of the enemy. 
As it was provisioned for a long time, and as Judas had no means 
of reducing fortifications, the most that could be done was to hold 
the garrison in check and to fortify the Temple as a balancing 
stronghold. Even then the hostile force constantly present was 
a reminder of Antiochus's claims and of the limitations of the 
Jews. Beth-zur, the frontier town toward Idumea, was strength- 
ened, now that recent events had shown its importance. The 
Jews were, in fact, but a handful of people in the midst of a large 
hostile population. Hereditary enemies were the Idumeans on 
the south and the Samaritans on the north. In the Hellenised 
cities the Jews were looked upon with dislike. Frequent popu- 
lar outbreaks against them attest this. And the conduct of the 
Jews when in power was not calculated to disarm hatred. It is 
not surprising, therefore, that from various quarters reports of 
persecution began to come to Jerusalem. 

Judas was not the man to leave his kinsmen to the tender 
mercies of the wicked. War was carried first against the Idume- 
ans, who were trespassers on the ancient territory of Judah. 
Their army suffered a severe defeat, one of their strongholds was 
taken, the tower was destroyed, and the garrison was exter- 
minated.^ A campaign against the Ammonites was equally suc- 
cessful. Then came a cry for help from Gilead, where the Jews 
were set upon by the Gentiles and obliged to take refiige in 
a fortress called Dathema. In Galilee, also, the Jews were hard 
pressed by bands from Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon, cities of 

^ The book called 2 Maccabees is a pamphlet intended to commend the 
observance of this feast and of Nicanor's Day to the Jews of Alexandria. 

2 I Mace. 5 ^"^. The defeat was inflicted at Akrabattene, doubtless the 
Pass of Akrabbim of the Old Testament. The fortress whose inhabitants 
were devoted after the Old Testament method is called Baian. The place 
is not yet identified, and it is not yet certain even that it was in Idumea. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 461 

strong Greek feeling. With the consent of the popular assem- 
bly at Jerusalem, Judas marched with eight thousand men to 
Gilead, while his brother Simon with three thousand went into 
Galilee. Both expeditions were successful. But instead of at- 
tempting to hold these regions, the two generals brought back 
with them the Jews w^ho had been under persecution and settled 
them in Judea. For the present, the idea of setting up an ex- 
tended kingdom must remain in abeyance. 

That these successes were due in large measure to the courage 
and capacity of the leaders was soon manifest. While Judas was 
busy in Gilead and Simon in Galilee, the command in Judea de- 
volved upon Joseph and Azarias, who had received strict orders 
to remain on the defensive. But ambitious of glory, these men 
disobeyed orders and marched against Jamnia in the Philistine 
territory. Gorgias was here in command, the same who had 
once been defeated by Judas. He now had his revenge, the 
Jews being defeated and leaving two thousand dead upon the 
field. The severe lesson was not lost upon the Jews, and they 
trusted the Maccabean brothers to lead them from this time on. 
Under their leadership further successes were obtained against 
Idumea and Philistia. The fortifications of Hebron were razed; 
Maresha ^ and Ashdod w^ere captured. In the latter city, and 
probably in the others, the altars were destroyed and the statues 
of the gods were burned. Tolerance is not begotten of intoler- 
ance. 

These various successes w-ere obtained when the resources of 
the kingdom were employed elsewhere. Antiochus had gone to 
the far East and there had met his death. ^ He left a young son 
whom he commended to one of his generals named Philip. But 
Lysias, who was administrator at Antioch, without waiting for 
Philip's return, proclaimed the young Antiochus king and pre- 
pared to maintain himself as regent. Scarcely was the corona- 

^ I Mace. 5 ^^^''. On the reading Maresha, see Schiirer, Geschichte des 
Jiid. Volkes,^ I., p. 212, Schiirer's sketch of the Maccabean uprising is an 
acknowledged masterpiece. 

2 It was natural for the Jewish writer (i Mace. 6 ^^'^) to attribute his death 
to the news he received of the recovery of the Temple by the Jews. 2 
Mace, as is its wont, paints the end of the blasphemer in edifying colours ; 
and Josephus is much outraged because Apion asserts that the king was 
smitten, not for sacrilege against Jerusalem, but for plundering a heathen 
temple. 



462 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

tion over when an urgent message came from the Syrian garrison 
at Jerusalem: Judas was actively besieging the citadel, and 
there was fear that it could not long hold out. 

The young king and his guardian responded quickly to the 
insult put upon them by the Jewish rebels, and resolved to crush 
the revolt by one decisive blow. An immense army was gath- 
ered, strong in cavalry, in which the Jews were notably deficient, 
and including thirty-two elephants. This arm of the service had 
been employed since the time of Alexander, but had not yet been 
used against the Jews. The invasion, like the preceding one, 
took place from the south. Beth-zur was besieged and Judas 
marched to its relief from Jerusalem. The armies met at Beth 
Zacharias, not far north of Beth-zur. The most desperate valour 
on the part of the Jews was unavailing. Eleazar, one of the 
Maccabean brothers, met his death in stabbing the elephant 
which he supposed to carry the young king. But the odds were 
too great. The defeat was decisive; active opposition in the 
field could no longer be thought of. The garrison of Beth-zur 
was obliged to surrender ; the Syrian army marched to Jerusalem, 
and relieved the citadel. Judas was obliged to retire to the 
Temple, where he was in turn besieged. The garrison was in 
extremity owing to the lack of provisions,^ when a new turn was 
given to affairs by events at Antioch. 

The above-named Philip, appointed by Antiochus guardian of 
his son and administrator of the kingdom, was now approaching 
Antioch with the army of the East, and was prepared to claim 
his office. The anxiety of Lysias to retain his regency forced 
him to march against Philip at once. He therefore hastily made 
peace with the garrison of the Temple, promising the Jews free- 
dom to observe their own religious customs. When he got pos- 
session of the place he thought it too strong, and therefore broke 
down the exterior walls. He did not otherwise interfere with 
the sacred building. 

The concession which allowed the Jews to observe their own 
religious customs was one which if made earlier in the conflict 
would have secured complete submission to the central authority. 

^ It was the Sabbatical year, conscientious observance of which often 
brought the Jews into difficulty. The mention of this year as the Sabbatical 
year enables us to date the siege in 163 B.C. ; see Schiirer, Geschichte des 
Jiid. Volkes^, I, p. 214. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE " 463 

But after the Jews had tasted the sweets of liberty they were not 
so easily satisfied. The straitest sect indeed (the Chasidim) now 
detached themselves from the revolution. They were content to 
live under any masters so long as they were allowed to observe 
their Law. But the Maccabeans and those most strongly attached 
to them distrusted the promises made by the young king. They 
knew also that the Hellenising Jews had heavy scores to pay off. 
Whether, in addition, Judas and his followers had large national 
aspirations cannot be decided with confidence. It would not be 
strange if they regarded their earlier successes as the pledge of 
something better yet to come. In view of all the circumstances 
Judas refused to be lulled into a false security and remained on 
guard. Events soon justified his precautions. 

The Syrian throne had been designed by Seleucus IV (Philo- 
pator) for his son Demetrius. Antiochus Epiphanes had been 
able to usurp it because Demetrius had been sent to Rome as a 
hostage. Just at the time when Lysias succeeded in defeating 
Philip, his rival, this Demetrius escaped from Rome and landed 
in Syria. The troops received him with open arms and deliv- 
ered Antiochus V and Lysias into his hands. Questions about 
the succession were settled (as was supposed) by the execution of 
the young Antiochus. Demetrius would not have been disposed 
to interfere with the settlement made at Jerusalem, had he not 
•been appealed to by the Hellenising Jews. A certain Alkimus 
(Jakim was his Hebrew name) had aspirations for the high-priest- 
hood. It is possible that he was in the direct line of succession ; 
we have seen that the first Hellenistic influences in Jerusalem 
came from members of the family of Aaron. The Chasidim, as 
we know, recognised his legitimacy. At the court of Demetrius 
he complained of the persecution of the orthodox party and 
asked that a royal officer be appointed to investigate affairs in 
Palestine. In truth, the public peace was hardly likely to be kept 
while the Jews themselves were so divided. The Maccabeans 
regarded the Hellenisers as renegades, and were in turn looked 
down upon as outlaws and brigands. When the government 
had no adequate police force on the spot, we can imagine the 
aspect of affairs in Jerusalem. 

The suggestion of Alkimus was adopted and Bacchides was 
sent to investigate. We can hardly blame him for not appreciat- 
ing the piety of the Maccabeans, in whom he could see only dis- 



464 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

turbers of the king's peace. But it was gratuitous cruelty — not 
only a crime but a blunder — to abuse those who were willing to 
submit to the royal will. The Chasidim were ready to receive 
Alkimus, recognising the legitimacy of his high-priestly blood. 
But he had no desire except to be representative of his party. 
Pretending to be friendly to the Chasidim, he got them into his 
power and put sixty of them to death in one day. Bacchides 
laid waste the country about Jerusalem, looting and murdering. 
After terrorising the people sufficiently, as he supposed, he re- 
turned to Antioch, leaving a force of soldiers under Alkimus's 
command. 

Alkimus continued to take his revenge on the Chasidim, and 
the folly of his measures was soon evident. He actually drove 
everybody who would be faithful to his religion into the arms of 
Judas. Judas therefore soon became strong enough to take the 
offensive and to recompense the persecutors sevenfold into their 
bosom. It needs no demonstration that the seasoned warrior 
was more than a match for the tyrannical high-priest. Alkimus 
was obliged to appeal again to the central authority, and Ni- 
canor, one of the generals who had fought under Gorgias, was sent 
to Jerusalem. An effort to get possession of Judas' s person by 
treachery failed, and a skirmish resulted in a reverse for Nicanor. 
When the Syrian came to Jerusalem the priests showed their 
friendly disposition and pointed out the sacrifice they were offer- 
ing for the king. But Nicanor's wrath against Judas included 
all Jews, no matter whether they were loyal or not. He broke 
out in scoffing and reviling and swore that if Judas was not de- 
livered to him he would burn the Temple. 

The threats were not carried out. Reinforcements having 
arrived from the king, Nicanor camped at Beth-horon, the scene 
of Israel's former victories. With a much inferior force/ Judas 
attacked from the northeast. The faith and valour of the Jews 
were again crowned with success, and Judas was able to rejoice 
over as complete a victory as any that he had yet attained. The 
arrogant Nicanor was among the slain, and his head and right 
hand were sent to Jerusalem in evidence of the victory. Ni- 
canor's day became an annual festival and was celebrated till dis- 
placed or absorbed by Purim, which falls at the same season of 
the year. 

^ Three thousand men according to i Mace. 7 *®. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 465 

The joy was of short duration. The resources of the kingdom, 
when fully drawn upon, were more than equal to the most des- 
perate valour of the Jews. Only two months elapsed before the 
western division of the royal army appeared with Bacchides and 
Alkimus at its head. The impression made by this overwhelming 
force was so great that Judas' s men deserted wholesale, leaving 
him only eight hundred out of three thousand. The few that re- 
mained advised against a battle. But Judas had so often op- 
posed a superior force that he was willing to make one more 
attempt — or perhaps he was tired of the unending struggle and 
willing to end it. The desperate charge of his little band broke 
the right wing of the enemy. But the left wing closed in upon 
them, and though, surrounded as they were, they prolonged the 
obstinate contest till evening, the greater part were cut down. 
Among these was Judas. His brothers Simon and Jonathan, with 
a few followers, cut their way through the opposing ranks and 
brought their leader's body from the field. This they buried in 
the ancestral sepulchre at Modein amid the lamentations of the 
whole people.^ 

Thus fell a man who deserves to be enrolled among the heroes 
of the nations. Trained in the hard school of experience, he 
became a soldier of the first rank. Again and again he gained 
victories in the face of overwhelming odds. With his whole 
'heart he gave himself to the defence of his outraged and op- 
pressed people. There is no evidence that ambition for himself 
ever entered his thoughts. He refused, indeed, to recognise a 
treaty into which the Chasidim entered. But this was because 
he had a well-grounded distrust of Syrian promises. If he had 
ambition, it was ambition for his ]Deople's liberties. His death 
was the fitting crown to nine years of incessant struggle for what 
men hold most dear.^ 

The death of Judas left the Maccabean party in as forlorn a 
situation as can well be imagined. They were completely in the 
power of the renegades, and these did not hesitate to feed fat 
their ancient grudges. As though heaven itself had turned 

* I Mace. 9 ^"22. The defeat of Nicanor and the death of Judas both fall 
within the first half of the year 161 B.C. The localities where they took 
place are not yet certainly identified. 

^The account of Judas's alliance with the Romans (i Mace. 8) is regarded 
with just suspicion. See Willrich, Jndaica, p. 62 ff. 



466 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

against them, a severe famine came upon the land. Bacchides 
ruthlessly searched out and executed the adherents of Judas. 
The author of i Maccabees, a sober and judicious historian, de- 
clares that no such extremity of persecution had come upon the 
faithful since the cessation of prophetic inspiration. A mere 
handful of desperate men clung to Jonathan as their leader and 
resolved to die with their weapons in their hands. It seemed as 
if this were all that they would be permitted to do. The land 
swarmed with enemies. From his headquarters at Tekoa in the 
Wilderness of Judea, Jonathan sent some of his possessions for safe 
keeping to the Nabateans, who alone were friendly. The train 
was under the command of John, another of the Maccabean 
brothers. On the way it was ambushed by the Bedawin ^ and 
cut in pieces. The vengeance taken upon an unsuspecting com- 
pany of these same Bedawin a little later could not make good 
the loss of John. But the successful resistance made by the 
Maccabeans against Bacchides at the ford of the Jordan might be 
interpreted as a good omen.^ 

The Syrian general, having strengthened the fortified towns 
throughout the district, supposed that Judea was pacified and re- 
turned to Antioch. About the same time Alkimus was smitten 
with paralysis.^ His death made no difference in the policy of 
the Hellenisers who aimed at the extermination of their enemies. 
They invited Bacchides to fall unexpectedly upon the remnant of 
Maccabean adherents and wipe it out. The plan was betrayed 
to Jonathan, who, after inflicting some losses upon the invaders, 
fortified himself in one of the wilderness strongholds.* Here 
when besieged he was so bold in sorties that the siege could not 
be carried on, and Bacchides, disgusted with the fruitless strife, 
turned against the Hellenisers, put some of them to death, and 
made peace with Jonathan. In the treaty he agreed not to make 
war upon Jonathan and agreed also to release the prisoners be- 
longing to the orthodox party. He then returned to Antioch, 

1 The enemy came from Medeba, i Mace, g^^, and are called Ainbri, a 
name which occurs nowhere else. 

^ I Mace. 9 ^''"*^. Bacchides had crossed the Jordan in pursuit of Jona- 
than. 

^ The orthodox regarded this as a punishment upon him for pulling down 
some of the Temple walls, i Mace. g^*^. 

* Beth-basi, otherwise unknown. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 467 

leaving Jonathan practically master in Judea — for the Hellenising 
party were always dependent upon the king's soldiers. 

Jonathan fixed his headquarters at Michmash — known to be a 
strong position as early as the time of Saul. Here he exercised 
the rights of de facto ruler : ^' He began to judge the people and 
to cut off the ungodly from Israel." The great majority of the 
people were on his side as against the Hellenisers. Jerusalem 
was, however, in the hands of the Syrians and there the Hellen- 
isers were protected. Probably Jonathan had agreed not to at- 
tack the city when he entered into treaty with Bacchides. For 
about five years the double rule went on. But during all this 
time the power of Jonathan was increasing. Events in the other 
parts of the empire soon gave him unexpected prominence. 

In the year 153 B.C. a claimant for the Syrian throne ap- 
peared in the person of Alexander Balas. This man was put for- 
ward by the King of Pergamum and was supported by Ptolemy 
VI. He claimed the throne on the ground that he was a son of 
Antiochus Epiphanes — which was false. But owing to the sup- 
port of his two sponsors and owing also to the popular dissatis- 
faction with Demetrius he soon became a formidable rival to this 
prince. It became important to Demetrius to secure the support 
of his vassals. Among these Jonathan was distinguished for 
ability and courage. It was this state of affairs which gave Jona- 
than advantages never possessed by Judas. Jonathan had the 
tact to make the best use of these opportunities. The beginning 
was made in the same year in which Alexander Balas appeared 
(153 B. c), in which year Demetrius made Jonathan high-priest 
and prince of the Jewish people. 

We have seen that the high-priest was the civil as well as the 
religious head of the community. The embarrassment created 
by this combination of offices became evident at various points 
in the history. The Syrian king might — in the case of Mene- 
laus he did — put into possession of the office a man whom the 
orthodox Jews could not recognise because he was not of the 
line of Aaron. During this period this party therefore regarded 
the high-priesthood as in abeyance. The result was to throw 
more power into the hands of the popular assembly. It was by 
the advice and consent of this assembly that Judas acted. He 
was never inducted into any official position in the common^ 
wealth. The same was true of Jonathan up to the time when 



468 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

he was appointed by Demetrius to the office left vacant since the 
death of Alkimus. 

It is not the province of an Old Testament history to give an 
account of the wars, rebellions, and treacheries which came in 
the next few years. Jonathan showed as much ability in nego- 
tiation as he had shown in fighting. When he thought it to his 
interest he went over to Alexander. Under Demetrius II, who 
displaced Alexander, he increased his power and his terri- 
tory. A new pretender made additional promi.ses, until it was 
seen that Jonathan was becoming a danger to the very king 
whom he had helped to the throne. Trypho, prime minister of 
Antiochus VI, led an army into Palestine, but was able to do 
nothing against Jonathan. But his treacherous invitation to 
Jonathan to be his guest at Ptolemais was more successful. 
The Jewish leader came into the city with a bodyguard of a 
thousand men. The guard was cut down and Jonathan was 
seized. After some negotiation with Simon, the last of the 
Maccabean brothers, Trypho put his prisoner to death. 

Simon succeeded to the high-priestly office, being formally 
elected by the popular assembly of the Jews apparently about the 
beginning of the year 142 b.c. He recognised Demetrius II 
as his monarch and obtained from him more extensive conces- 
sions than had yet been made to any Jewish leader. The Jews 
themselves regarded the accession of Simon as the beginning of 
their independence, and estabhshed this as the beginning of an 
era from which they henceforth dated their documents. The 
concessions of Demetrius were, however, on paper only. The 
actual power was in the hands of Trypho, who now murdered his 
ward, the young Antiochus VI, and proclaimed himself king. 
Simon proceeded to make his own the powers promised by Deme- 
trius. The important fortified city of Gazera was besieged and 
taken, purged of its heathen emblems and abominations, and settled 
with Jewish colonists.' More important \vas the reduction of the 
citadel of Jerusalem, which had been held by a Syrian garrison 
since the beginning of the Maccabean troubles. The fortifica- 

^ The Philistine cities suffered severely in these wars. The Jewish hatred 
of idolatry is exemplified in the destruction of the ancient temple of Dagon 
at Ashdod. This building, with those who had sought refuge there, was 
burned by Jonathan, i Mace. 10^*. The life of Simon is recounted in i 
Mace. 13-16. 



A NEW HEROIC AGE 469 

tions were too strong to be taken by assault, but the garrison 
was starved into surrender and allowed to march into Syria. 
The capitulation was a cause of great rejoicing to the Jews, as 
it made them complete masters of their own city. Simon 
not only garrisoned the citadel; he also rebuilt the forti- 
fications of the Temple. He fixed his own residence in the 
immediate vicinity of the sacred building. This he could do 
without offence, since he was high-priest. His son John Hyr- 
canus was made commander of the important fortress of Gazera, 
Simon distinguished himself by justice in the administration 
of internal affairs as well as by energy against the foes of Israel. 
The author of i Maccabees praises his rule as a time when peace 
and plenty prevailed : 

*' He brought peace to the land 
And Israel rejoiced greatly; 
Each man sat under his own vine and fig-tree, 
And no one made them afraid. 

There was no one on earth who made war upon them, 
And the kings were humbled in those days. 
He lifted up the poor of his people ; 
He was full of zeal for the Law 
And cut off every renegade and sinner. 
He beautified the Sanctuary 
And multiplied the vessels of the Temple." 



CHAPTER XX 

THE PRIEST-KINGS ' 

The supremacy of the Maccabean dynasty is marked by the 
decree which confirmed Simon in possession of the high-priest- 
hood. This decree, which was engraved on a bronze tablet and 
set up in the Temple, was issued in the name of " the general 
assembly of the priests and people, the elders of the people and 
the dignitaries of the land." ^ It recited the benefits conferred 
upon the land by the Maccabean brothers, especially by Simon. 
It then declared that for these benefits Simon was to be their 
leader and high-priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet shall 
arise. To him was given command of the army, control over 
public works, fortresses and munitions of war, and the oversight 
of the Temple. He was to issue decrees in his own name and 
had the right to wear purple and gold. 

If we inquire wherein this decree added to the rights and dig- 
nities possessed by Simon's predecessors, we must remind our- 
selves that none of the Maccabean brothers had had more than 
an ad interim authority. To the high-priesthood they had no 
hereditary claim, and Jonathan's appointment to this office by 
the Syrian king could not make his title legitimate even in the 
eyes of his own adherents, much less in the eyes of the Chasidim. 
The latter party, as we have seen, preferred an Alkimus, hostile 
as he was to them, because he had hereditary rights. After the 
death of Alkimus no one seems to have come forward to claim 
the succession. The awkwardness of having no one to preside 
over the sacred rites was terminated by the recognition of 
Simon. It concerns the state that there be an end of litigation. 
The decree making Simon high-priest for ever was intended to 
settle the dignity in his family — so far as himiafi recogJiition could 
do this. At the same time it was made evident that the popular 
assembly was not certain that it could do this ; the settlement 
was made till a trustworthy prophet shall arise. Evidently the 
^ I Mace. 14^'"^^. The decree is dated in Simon's third year. 
470 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 471 

doctrinaire scribes were not satisfied. The popular assembly 
could not nullify the will of God as revealed in the Law. 
Doubtless there was room here for grave differences, and a later 
time brought forth severe strictures upon the family that without 
claim of blood had usurped the high-priestly office.' 

We can hardly be far wrong in ascribing to the reign of 
Simon the final redaction and publication of the book of 
Psalms. This is a collection of lyric poems of very different 
dates. That some of them belong in the Maccabean period is 
evident.^ The process of redaction has here been a complicated 
one. There were a number of smaller collections made at dif- 
ferent times for devotional use — books of private prayer we may 
call them. Some of the collections bore the name of David, 
perhaps under the influence which led the Chronicler to credit 
this king with the organisation of the Temple service.^ Zeal for 
the Temple service in the time of Simon led to the combination 
of all these manuals of devotion into one book. Some of the 
Psalms were composed for the Temple service, some were adapted 
to this service by being rewritten or expanded. The line 
which divides songs of personal experience from songs suitable 
for public worship is indeed not very sharply drawn. A psalm 
.of personal experience may express emotions common to many 
believers. In a period of persecution the individual prayer is 
the prayer of the whole community.* 

A prominent characteristic of the time in which many of the 
compositions were written is the sharp opposition of the parties 
in Israel. The writers represent themselves as oppressed by their 
arrogant neighbours. Sometimes these neighbours are heathen. 
But in many cases they are clearly Jews by blood who ought to 
follow the Law, but who have chosen the worldly part. It is 
the boast of the pious singer that he has not sat in the company 
of these scoffers, that he hates the assembly of the evildoers. 

^ The Assiiviptio Mosis expresses the views of this faction (chapter 6 ^). 

2 The denial cannot be accounted for except on the ground of an'unhistor- 
ical theory of the closing of the canon. The reader should examine Cheyne's 
Bampton Lectures on the Oi'igin and Gi-owth of the Psalter (1891). 

' The impossibility of the Psalms in the Davidic collection (1-41) being by 
David is pointed out by Driver, Litei-aiiire 0/ the Old Testament ^^ p. 374 ff. 

* The question whether the ego of the Psalms is individual or collective 
has been much discussed ; see for example Smend in the Zeitschr. f. d. Alt- 
test. Wiisettsch., VIII, pp. 49-147. 



472 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

Yet these evildoers are often in intimate intercourse with the 
faithful, against whom they plot : 

" Cruel witnesses rise up against me, 
They ask me things of which I know nothing ; 
They repay me evil for good. 
But when they were ill I put on sackcloth, 
I afflicted myself with fasting ; 

With bowed head I prayed as if it were my brother, 
As if mourning for my mother, I went in black. 
Now they rejoice together over my calamity, 
They utter slanders without end." ^ 

It needs no argument to show the appropriateness of this lan- 
guage in the period we have been considering. And in this 
period also we can understand those Psalms which take up again 
the problem of the book of Job. The renegade Jews were often 
prospered ; the faithful suffered persecution, privation, even 
martyrdom; was this according to the divine justice? The 
reflections and exhortations of the Psalmists show how this ques- 
tion forced itself upon them. They have no answer for it except 
the confidence that things cannot long be so, that Yahweh will 
soon intervene for the deliverance of the righteous.^ Prayer for 
this intervention is the object of many a Psalm. That the rescue 
of the pious means also the destruction of their enemies is plainly 
indicated, and the authors do not hesitate to imprecate those who 
take sides against the true God. 

Few of the Psalms show a hope for the future life, in the 
Christian sense of the words. The hint in the book of Daniel 
concerning a resurrection has not reached the authors. They 
find in Sheol only the dark and shadowy abode of the dead ; the 
manes are deprived of the presence of God : "In death there is 
no remembrance of Thee; in Sheol who can praise Thee?" 
The lesson which the wise man has to teach is only the old one 
that man being in honour abides not ; he is like the cattle that 
perish. Hence the passionate cry for deliverance from death 
which meets us so often. The sufferer dreads to go away from 
the presence of Yahweh into the dark world of shades. 

And this presence of Yahweh which the worshipper enjoys is 

1 Ps. 35 11-1^^; cf. Pss. 41, 55. The difficulties in the text I have quoted 
are considerable, but I have given the sense. 
'' Cf. Pss. 37, 49, 52, ^i. 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 473 

His presence in the Temple. The persecutions and humiliations 
visited upon this place of the Presence have made it tenfold more 
dear. None of the Psalms are more vivid in their expression of 
emotion than those which praise Jerusalem, the joy of the whole 
earth. The lament of the exile draws its pathos from remem- 
brance of those happier days, when he was permitted to walk in 
solemn procession to the House of Yahweh amid the shouts and 
thanksgivings of the pilgrim throng. Now far away from the 
sacred spot he is condemned to hear the scoff: " Where is thy 
God?" His comfort is the hope that he will yet be brought 
back to praise God in the place He has chosen.^ In the pilgrim 
Psalms the authors express the fervour of their joy at being al- 
lowed to go up to Jerusalem — to Jerusalem the joy of the whole 
earth. 

In proportion to this affection is the agony of the pious soul 
when the sacred city is desolated, as it was in the Antiochean 
persecution. In sad expostulation the Psalmist reminds his God 
that Israel had received the land by divine grace, and had relied 
on a continuance of that grace. Yet what had they experienced ? 

" Thou hast rejected and put us to shame, 
And goest not forth with our armies ; 
Thou turnest us back before the enemy, 
And those that hate us take the spoil. 

Thou givest us to be devoured like sheep, 
And scatterest us among the heathen. 
Thou sellest Thy people for naught, 
And dost not even name a price for them. 

This all came upon us who have never forgotten Thee, 

Nor have we betrayed Thy covenant. 

Our heart did not turn away, 

Nor did our footsteps leave Thy path." ^ 

If in such circumstances the sorely tried believer cries out to 
God to wake and see the straits of His people, so in the time of 
relief he records the triumphs of Israel. Not always had Yah- 
weh forgotten His people. In the convulsions of the Syrian 
kingdom, His people had not trusted Him in vain. He had 
been their refuge and stronghold. It was He who made wars to 

* Pss. 42 and 43— originally one poem. 

' Ps. 44 ; cf. 74 and 79, which speak of the desecration of the Temple. 



474 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

cease, broke the bow, cut the spear in sunder, burned the war 
chariots with fire. These successes strengthened faith. The 
plans of God are indeed apprehended by faith alone. The un- 
believer does not know, nor the brutish man understand them — 
the fool even says in his heart that there is no God. But the 
believer finds in the present experience of God's mercies a prom- 
ise of that future when all His enemies shall be cut off.^ And 
in view both of present successes and of future certainty, all 
creatures are called to join in praise of Him whose mercy endures 
for ever. 

The piety which here expressed itself was a Bible piety. It 
nourished itself upon the Law and the Prophets, now the ap- 
proved Word of God. As for the Law, the believer rejoiced to 
find in its multifarious precepts the method of showing his love to 
their Author. The first Psalm, written as a preface to the book, 
praises the man who walks in the Tora of Yahweh. And this is 
the keynote of the book. Occasional utterances which seem to 
depreciate ritual, as compared with moral, obedience are only 
echoes of words spoken by the prophets. They show a desire to 
attain spiritual obedience, but the authors are far from doubting 
the divine obhgation of the Levitical system. The same man 
who in prophetic spirit refuses to rebuke Israel in the matter of 
sacrifices yet declares that thank-offerings do honour Yahweh. 
The longest Psalm in the collection is devoted to the praise of 
the Tora. With skilful, if somewhat artificial, method the 
author rings the changes on the words law, commandments, or- 
dinances, precepts, instruction, warning, judgments, word — in 
each case meaning the Pentateuchal code with its rules and its 
exhortations. 

And the other collection of sacred books — the Prophets — were 
studied as a book of fate. The author of Daniel had tried to 
read its secret. The fact that his date was wrong had not proved 
his expectation false. The postulates of Israel's faith compelled 
the conclusion that Yahweh must give the kingdom to His own 
people. To Him belongs the predicate living, in contrast with 
the gods of the heathen which are only dumb idols.^ He is God 

^ Pss. 92, 93, 96, and others. Ps. 68 deserves especial mention as a vivid 
portrayal of the feelings of the pious in view of the Maccabean successes. 

2 Ps. 115. Parallel passages in Isaiah, 40, 44, and 46 will occur to every- 
one. 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 475 

of the whole earth. The wonders of earth, sea, and sky are His crea- 
tion. And He is the judge of the whole earth. Even the angels 
who have abused the power He has committed to them will be 
called to account.^ When the great assembly of the nations is 
held, Israel will be justified and the Gentiles will be condemned. 
In fact, in the imagination of the writer, Israel has already 
been seated on Zion as the son of Yahweh. Against him the na- 
tions shall rage in vain. All God's people may claim a share 
in this kingly pre-eminence. In this faith one writer lays down 
the principles of the theocratic government : 

" My eye shall be upon the faithful ; he shall sit with me. 
He who walks in the right way shall serve me. 
He who exercises deceit shall not dwell in my house. 
Whoever speaks lies shall not remain in my presence. 
Daily will 1 root out the wicked in the land, 
And cut off from the city of Yahweh all workers of iniquity." ^ 

We can imagine one of the Maccabean princes adopting these 
resolutions as his programme, and in pursuance of them cutting 
off the Hellenisers who had wrought iniquity in the land. 

But these Messianic expectations naturally implied a revival 
of the Davidic dynasty. The early Hasmoneans might be re- 
garded as so many Davids, walking in his spirit and power. But 
as the dynasty continued, it failed to fulfil — any dynasty must 
fail to fulfil — the expectation of the ideahst. And so we find 
hopes of a personal Messiah coming to the front. One Psalm 
describes the ideal king for us, another recounts the prophecies 
concerning David, with an expostulation against their non-fulfil- 
ment.^ These expectations were likely to issue in discontent 
and revolt. No civil ruler has ever satisfied ecclesiastical ideals. 

But there can be no doubt that the situation under Simon was 
an advance on anything the faithful Jews had experienced since 
the time of Nehemiah. There was practical independence of 
foreign power ; the Temple was no longer in danger of desecra- 
tion ; faithful observers of the Law were no more persecuted ; 

1 Pss. 58 and 82. 

2 Ps. loi ^•'^. The Messiah of Ps. 2 seems to be Israel, the nation. 

^ Ps. 8920-52^ cf. 72 and 132. The priestly kingship, justified by the ex- 
ample of Melchizedek in Ps. no, may be an attempt to sanction the position 
of the Maccabean princes. 



476 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

they were, in fact, in favour with the government. Many unfortu- 
nates who had been sold into slavery were redeemed and brought 
home. Jews outside Palestine could again look to Jerusalem as 
their joy and pride. When they made their pilgrimage they found 
Jerusalem beautiful for situation, and the Temple services were 
administered in a manner worthy of the seat of the Great King. 

The deep and earnest spiritual life which shows itself in the 
Psalms was attached (as we have seen) to the sacred books of the 
Law and the Prophets. The power of these books for good was 
extended at about this period by their translation into the Greek 
language. The Jewish colony at Alexandria had been increased 
in numbers during the Maccabean troubles. In the great centre 
of Greek culture the Jews were obliged to learn the Greek lan- 
guage. The generation that grew up in Greek surroundings had 
little use for Hebrew, which even in Palestine was becoming the 
language of the learned alone. Nothing was more natural than 
that the Law — the rule of life for every faithful Jew — should be 
put into a Greek dress. So far as we know, this was the first 
attempt to extend the influence of an important literary work by 
translation from one language to another. 

Jewish tradition, which dehghted to embellish history with the 
acts and monuments of Gentile kings, has invented a story de- 
signed to dignify the translation of the Law. One Aristeas is 
represented as writing an account of it to a friend. Both the 
writer and the receiver of the letter are intended to be Gentiles. 
Aristeas recounts that being an officer at the court of Ptolemy 
Philadelphus he heard the king inquire of hishbrarian, Demetrius 
Phalereus, concerning the progress of the great library under his 
charge. Demetrius, after giving the number of books at two 
hundred thousand, suggests to the king that the Jewish Law is 
worthy of a place in the collection. In answer to further in- 
quiries he explains that it will be necessary to have the Law in 
translation. Moved by the suggestion the king sends Aristeas 
with another high official to the high-priest at Jerusalem. The 
letter with which they are intrusted asks that six competent 
men from each tribe be sent to make a translation of the Law 
from Hebrew into Greek. The writer takes occasion to describe 
the gifts interchanged by the king and the high-priest, and to set 
forth the glory of the Temple and its services. The mission is 
successful and the seventy-two interpreters come to Alexandria, 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 477 

where they are lavishly entertained by the king and where they 
successfully execute their work. The newly made version of the 
Law is submitted to the Jewish community of Alexandria and is 
approved by them. 

There are few cases where the falsity of a document is so evi- 
dent as here. The only historical basis for the letter is the inter- 
est taken by Philadelphus in the Alexandrian library. All else 
is fiction pure and simple, and instructive only as showing the 
length to which a Jew would go to glorify his people and their 
institutions.^ The document would hardly be worth mention 
except for the influence it has had on Christian views of the 
inspiration of the so-called Septuagint. 

What we know about the matter may be put into a single sen- 
tence. The grandson of Jesus Sirach, who expressly tells us that 
he came into Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of Euergetes — 
which would be 132 B.C. — speaks of the Law, the Prophecies, 
and the other books as having already been translated. That 
his own translation was undertaken soon after coming into Egypt 
we do not know ; nor need we date the translations of which he 
speaks, much before the time of his own writing. If we suppose 
the earliest efforts at translation to have been made about the 
year 150 B.C., we shall probably not be far out of the way.^ 

The translation of the Law was naturally of great importance 
for Jews. But it is difficult to think of any literary interest in 
such a work on the part of Greeks. It is impossible to think of 
a Greek approving such a jargon as we find in this version — a 
barbarous dialect which grew up among a people whose thought 
was Semitic in form, though they had learned a Greek vocab- 
ulary. 

Nevertheless, the making of the version is one of the great 
events of history. Among the Jews of the Dispersion this book 
took a place of authority. The early Church adopted it as its 
Bible. Its prophecies confirmed men's faith in Jesus as the 
Messiah ; its Psalms were the comfort of a new generation of 

^ The statements of the letter were refuted with great prolixity and learn- 
ing by Hody, De Biblioru7n Textibus (1705). As to the historic impossibil- 
ities, see Wendland's preface to his translation in Kautzsch, Psendepi- 
graphen des Alten Test.; Willrich, Juden und Griechen, p. 33 ff. 

'^ Willrich, Jtiden iind Griechen^ p. 156. Schiirer is inclined to an earlier 
date — the third century before Christ. 



478 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

oppressed believers ; its histories furnished examples of fidelity 
and heroism when men were ready to faint under their burdens. 
Without the Greek version of the Old Testament, it is difficult 
to conceive the Church coming into existence at all.^ 

The period of Simon was then one of importance for the in- 
ternal history of Judaism. Externally it was one of promise and 
of prosperity. In 135 B.C., however, Antiochus VII (Sidetes) took 
a hostile attitude toward the Jewish ruler, and made heavy 
demands for arrears of tribute. The army of Antiochus, sent to 
enforce these demands, was defeated at Jamnia by a Jewish 
army under the command of Simon's sons, Judas and John. 
The occurrence was nevertheless ominous, because of the attitude 
of the Syrian king. Soon after the event Simon himself was 
assassinated by his son-in-law, Ptolemy. With him two sons 
were slain, and Ptolemy endeavoured to seize Jerusalem and the 
supreme power for himself. So soon had the vulgar ambition 
for power invaded a family which had stood for unselfish devo- 
tion to righteousness. 

The first result of the murder was civil war. Ptolemy's at- 
tempt to seize the capital was frustrated by John Hyrcanus 
(Simon's third son) who was in command of Gazera. John was 
also able to possess himself of the greater part of the country, 
though his siege of Ptolemy's stronghold led to no result. The 
internal troubles of the country were soon overshadowed by an 
invasion conducted by Antiochus, whose siege of Jerusalem last- 
ing a year brought the garrison to the verge of despair. Accord- 
ing to Diodorus Siculus,^ the king's boon companions advised 
him to make an end of the misanthropic people. But he con- 
tented himself with exacting the arrears of tribute and razing 
the walls of Jerusalem. Hyrcanus must have found the terms 
humiliating enough, but he did not have to wait long for his 
opportunity. 

1 The tiiXe Septuagint applied to a Greek version of the Old Testament, 
arose from the tradition of 70 or 72 translators. It has been suggested 
recently that 70 was the number of members in the Sanhedrin at Alexandria, 
under whose auspices the version of the Law was first published. 

2 Book XXXIV. I owe the citation to Willrich, Jiiden iind Griechen, p. 
61 f. The statement that Hyrcanus plundered the tomb of David of its treas- 
ures in order to pay the exactions need not be taken seriously (Josephus, 
Ant., VII, 15, 3). On the theory that the Romans intervened in favour of 
the Jews, see Schiirer, Gesch. d. Jiid. Volkes,^ I, p. 261 f. 



THE TRIEST-KINGS 479 

Antiochus was called to the East by the customary revolt of 
his provinces and met his death in battle against the Parthians 
(129 B.C.). Hyrcanus accompanied him on this campaign but 
was not involved in the catastrophe. The weak Demetrius II 
was not able toenforceany claims against the Jews, and Hyrcanus 
saw his advantage. With an energy that reminds us of the best 
of his predecessors, he moved to regain the territory that had 
belonged to his father and in the process took revenge on the 
hereditary enemies of Israel — the Samaritans. The schismatic 
Temple on Gerizim was destroyed. Even more important for 
future history was the conquest of the Idumeans, who were com- 
pelled to submit to the rite of circumcision and thus to become 
a part of the Jewish body politic. Hyrcanus made a new depart- 
ure in the policy of his house, moreover, by enlisting mercenaries 
in his army instead of carrying on his wars by citizens of the 
commonwealth. Continued strife of pretenders to the Syrian 
throne allowed him to carry out his plans without serious opposi- 
tion. The weakness of the crown is attested by the fact that the 
new Antiochus was appealed to by the Samaritans to help them 
in the siege, but was able to accomplish nothing against the Jew- 
ish army. 

The reign of John Hyrcanus brought into prominence the two 
tendencies which had existed among the Jews since the time of 
Jonathan. The old Hellenists had disappeared. All the sub- 
jects of Hyrcanus were, externally at least, devoted to the an- 
cestral religion, worshipped none but Yahweh, and desired the 
administration of none but the Mosaic rites. But, as we saw 
during the Maccabean struggle, there were degrees of devotion. 
The Chasidim had always emphasised the observance of the Law 
from the religious point of view — the whole duty of man was to 
obey the will of God as laid down in His Book. When they were 
allowed to follow this principle, they withdrew from the struggle for 
Jewish liberty. They thought it no part of their duty to establish 
the kingdom — God would establish it by His direct intervention 
when the time should come. Because of this withdrawal, or 
because they held aloof from the common people, they received 
the name Pharisees or Separatists.^ Since their whole strength 
was given to the study and observance of the Law, they regarded 

' Perushim is the Hebrew form. On this whole subject, see Wellhausen, 
Pharisder und Sadducder (1874). 



480 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

themselves as the rightful leaders and teachers of the people. And 
the people for the most part conceded the clahn. Obedience to 
the six hundred and thirteen precepts requires serious study, and 
the exposition of what is commanded or forbidden is the work 
of professionals. 

It was inevitable that this party should become the critics of 
the Maccabean dynasty as soon as it was settled at the head of 
affairs. Practical politics cannot take account of the subtleties 
of theoretical jurisprudence, especially when this jurisprudence 
is built up on an ecclesiastical theory. This became evident 
in the reign of John Hyrcanus, if it was not evident before. 
John was minded to govern according to the Tora and to give 
heed to its Pharisaic expositors. According to Josephus, he 
invited their leaders to a feast and avowed his adhesion to them 
saying '' that he was desirous to be a righteous man and to do 
all things whereby he might please God" — which (Josephus 
adds) was the very profession of the Pharisees.^ The majority 
of those present testified to the prince's acceptability. But one 
Eleazar demanded that he lay down the high -priesthood because 
his mother had at T)ne time been a slave. 

The consistency of the interlocutor is evident. The high- 
priest's purity of blood must be above suspicion. The servitude 
of the mother, however unwilling, made her incapable of insur- 
ing the ingenuousness of her son. Hence the demand that he 
resign his office. Whether the allegation concerning the mother's 
slavery was true does not especially concern us — Josephus says 
that it was false. In any case here was a theorist who would 
oust a whole family from office because of a suspicion. That 
Hyrcanus was angry we may well believe. What embittered 
him most was that the whole party seemed to defend their rash 
colleague. On this account he broke with them and threw him- 
self into the arms of the Sadducees. 

By this name we designate the party of practical men who had 
identified themselves with the fortunes of the Maccabean house. 
These men were devoted to the Law, so far as this was compat- 
ible with their plans to secure Israel's political independence. 
They were the party of the priestly aristocracy and probably took 
their name from that Zadok, whose exclusive right to the priestly 
offices had been asserted by Ezekiel. The Sadducees were in 
^ Ant., XIII, 10, 5 ; cf. Gratz, Geschichte der Juden, ^ III, p. 128. 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 48 1 

some respects more conservative than the Pharisees, not recognis- 
ing those casuistical interpretations which the latter party re- 
garded as equally binding with the Law itself. That they re- 
jected the doctrine of the resurrection, as we learn from the New 
Testament, is doubtless explained by the fact that they did not 
find it taught in the Law. 

In speaking of the prominence of the city in the Greek period 
we conjectured that this prominence had something to do with 
the rise of the Sanhedrin. The reader will have noticed that in 
the Maccabean period we hear frequently of the Council or 
Senate of the Jews. Under this body Judas Maccabeus acted, 
and Simon received from it a confirmation of the power con- 
ferred by the king of Syria. Some sort of council of notables had 
existed in Israel from early times. One of the Pentateuchal 
editors imagined such a body active in the Mosaic age.^ The 
Chronicler tells us that Jehoshaphat organized a court at Jerusa- 
lem, the members of which were priests, Levites, and the heads of 
families. Nehemiah found such a body in existence in Jerusalem.^ 
These indications are sufficient to show that in the Chronicler's' 
time there existed a supreme court in Jerusalem. As the line 
which divides judicial from administrative functions w^as not 
sharply drawn in early times we can see how this court grew in 
importance, especially in the Maccabean period. When the 
office of high-priest was vacant, and w'hen the country was in 
revolt against the king of Syria, this court was the only organ of 
government to which men could appeal. Judas Maccabeus never 
claimed to rule, and he was glad to act as the appointee of what 
I Mace, calls (not without reason) the ^' Senate " of the Jews. 
During the time of stress, however, the membership of the body 
must have changed. The Hellenising nobles could not remain 
in the midst of a population hostile to all innovations. As they 
were banished, were executed or emigrated, new members would 
come in, men more in accord with the popular will. It is fair 
to say therefore that in this period the Sanhedrin (the w^ord is 
Greek) became democratic, whereas it had been aristocratic. 
The details of the process escape us, but we know that in New 
Testament times the most influential members of the body be- 
longed to the guild of scribes, and that the scribes were from both 

^ Num. II, ^^^ The verses are assigned to a late stratum of E. 
2Neh. 2 i«^ 2 Chron. 198. 



482 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

parties — Saddiicees and Pharisees.^ The animation of their 
debates, which not infrequently proceeded from words to blows, 
may be imagined. 

John Hyrcanus had a successful reign of thirty years, dying in 
104 B.C. The extent to which vulgar ambition had made its 
way into the Maccabean family came to hght after his death. 
The administration of affairs was left to his wife, while the high- 
priesthood, which could not be held by a woman, was assigned 
to Aristobulus, his oldest son. But Aristobulus had no notion 
of a merely ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He seized the supreme 
power, put his mother in prison, where she died of starvation, 
and kept three of his brothers in bonds. His relations with the 
other brother, Antigonus, were friendly ; but evil-minded per- 
sons found opportunity to sow discord between them, and Antig- 
onus was cut down by the bodyguard. The people's abhor- 
rence of the fratricide is manifested by the legends which arose 
concerning the event and the prodigies which preceded it,^ as 
also concerning the illness of Aristobulus which soon followed. 
In the single year of his reign this prince took to himself the title 
of king, something which the Maccabean rulers had not yet ven- 
tured to do. That he favoured the Sadducean party seems evi- 
dent, for he is said to have conducted himself as a Philhellene — a 
charge easily brought by the Pharisees against their opponents. 
During his reign the territory subject to Jerusalem was enlarged 
by the addition of Galilee, whose inhabitants were compelled to 
adopt Jewish customs, including circumcision. 

Aristobulus was succeeded by Alexander Jannseus, one of the 
brothers whom he had kept in prison.^ He carried out the pol- 
icy of his father and brother in favouring the Sadducean party. 
For this reason he was hated by the Pharisees. His reign was 
a miserable period of external and internal warfare. The rule of 
the Maccabees had become a despotism of the common oriental 

^ The subject is treated by Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiidischeji Volkes, ^11, 
pp. 188-214, where an extended bibliography is given. The testimony of 
Josephus {Ant. XII, 3, 3) concerning the times of Antiochus the Great 
must be received with caution, but the references of i Mace, to the " Senate " 
of the Jews are above suspicion. 

2 Josephus, Ant., XIII, 1 1, 2 f. ; Belhun Jiid., T, 3. 

^ The power fell at first into the hands of Aristobulus's wife Alexandra, 
who released Alexander and raised him to the throne, giving him also her 
hand. 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 483 

sort. The king sustained himself by a force of mercenaries, and 
those subjects who opposed him were treated with the utmost 
cruelty. They on their part sought help from tlie moribund 
Syrian kingdom, so that the reign of Janngeus may be called an- 
archy rather than the theocracy which it pretended to be. 

The details of Alexander's reign (103-76 B.C.) may be read 
in Josephus. From about this period, however, some literary 
monuments have come down to us, to which we must give a mo- 
ment's attention. One of these is the first book of Maccabees, 
upon which we have drawn so largely for our history of the great 
struggle for independence. The book ^ is a dignified and elo- 
quent defence of the Maccabean dynasty in the best form which 
such a defence could take — a plain and for the most part accurate 
account of its rise to power. It may be called the manifesto 
of the Sadducean party. 

Very different is the tone of the remarkable book which was 
circulated among the Pharisaic section of the people at about this 
time — the book of Enoch. ^ Various motives combined in the 
literature which circulated under the name of this antediluvian 
patriarch. One was undoubtedly the desire to trace science to 
ancient revelation. So we have Enoch, who was admitted to the 
secrets of heaven, expounding the method in which the heavenly 
bodies perform their work. 

But this is only a subordinate interest. The chief purpose of 
the school who wrote this literature is to develop a religious the- 
ory of the universe, and so to justify the ways of God to men. 
It takes up the thoughts of the book of Daniel, and carries them 
to their legitimate conclusion. The Ancient of Days again sits 
on a throne, and by his side the Son of Man who will thrust down 
the mighty from their seats of power. This Son of Man, how- 
ever, is not the nation Israel, but a personal Messiah, the posses- 
sor of righteousness and the revealer of the treasures of wisdom. 

^This refers to the main stock of the book, chapters i ^-14^^. The rest 
seems somewhat later in date. 

^ On the editions and versions, cf. Schiirer, Gesch. des Jiid. Volkes,^ III, 
p. 207 f. (English translation, II, 3, p. 54 ff.) The latest English translation 
is by Charles, The Book of Enoch (1893); one in German by Beer is pub- 
lished in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen des alien Testavients. The book of 
Enoch, as we have it, contains additions made somewhat later than the 
period we are now studying. 



484 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

He is already in existence in heaven, having been created before 
the stars, *' chosen and treasured before Him before the world 
was made." In the day in which He shall be revealed, the earth 
will give up those who are buried in it, Hades and the Abyss will 
give up their dead. After this resurrection will come the Judg- 
ment, and then the righteous will become like the angels. 

The advance over the partial resurrection taught in Daniel 
must be evident. And so is the advance in another particular. 
In Daniel the angels who rule over the nations are hostile to 
Israel. Enoch makes them worse, and in developing his theory 
he goes back to the story of the sons of God in Genesis. Two 
hundred of these (it is now said) conspired and took wives from 
among men. They taught these wives the secrets of sorcery. 
For this and for the violence of their sons, the giants, they were, 
at God's command, confined in dungeons under the earth till the 
great Judgment, after which they will be cast into Gehenna. 
Enoch is introduced as the herald divinely commissioned to 
announce their fate to these rebellious angels, and he is shown the 
place of their punishment. He also sees the divisions in Sheol — 
one the provisional Paradise of the faithful, another the temporary 
place of confinement for those who are later to be condemned to 
Gehenna, the third for those who do not attain to the resurrec- 
tion of the righteous, but who are not wicked enough to deserve 
the deeper damnation of Gehenna. 

This literature made various attempts to determine the time of 
the Messianic deliverance. We find one statement that the his- 
tory of the world will run its course in ten periods, of which seven 
have passed. The remaining three are to show successive stages 
of the triumph of righteousness. The writer regards his own 
time as one of degeneracy. More elaborate is the vision in which 
the history of the world is set forth as a conflict of the animals. ^ 
The most interesting part relates that, from the Assyrian period 
on, God gave His sheep (Israel) into the hands of seventy shep- 
herds. At the same time, foreseeing that the shepherds would 
exceed the instructions given them, He appointed a recorder to 
watch their conduct. These shepherds represent the guardian 
angels of the heathen nations — in this case also a hint of Daniel's 

^ Enoch, 83-90. The great horn in chapter 90, which is identified by 
some with Judas Maccabeus, and by others with John Hyrcanus, does not 
fully correspond with either. 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 485 

has been expanded. These angels of the nations have prompted 
the persecution of the Jews. In the great Day which is approach- 
ing they, as well as those other angels which kept not their first 
estate, will be brought to account. The period when Israel was 
thus in the power of the heathen has lasted in the author's view 
down to his own time. It will be followed by the great Judg- 
ment and that in turn by the Messianic time. 

A distinct bias against the Maccabean dynasty cannot be dis- 
covered in this book, but its emphasis is evidently laid much 
more on the expectation of divine interference for Israel than 
upon any helj) of man. Along with this expectation went an in- 
creased hatred of the Gentiles. An almost grotesque expression 
of this hatred is found in the historical romance which we call 
Esther, which is probably to be dated in this period. The plot 
is well known : A Persian king, apparently the Xerxes whose 
name was so well known to Asiatics and Europeans, takes offence 
at the disobedience of his favourite wife. A young Jewess is 
chosen as her successor, being the most beautiful of all the maid- 
ens of the kingdom. The dislike of Haman, minister of the 
king, for Mordecai, Esther's uncle, produces a decree that all 
Jews shall be exterminated. The salvation of the people is 
wrought by Esther, who risks her own life for them. As the 
decree of the king cannot be reversed, a new decree is issued au- 
thorising the Jews not only to defend themselves but to take 
vengeance upon their enemies. The result is the massacre of 
75,000 victims and the institution of a festival to keep the 
memory of the event alive ; the name of the festival is Purim. 

The unpleasant story is certainly unhistorical. It was written 
to justify the adoption of a Gentile festival, which seems to have 
been the New Year of the Babylonians or Persians. The mate- 
rial of the book is taken from Babylonian mythology, though it 
has been wholly Judaised. It does not seem extravagant to sup- 
pose some such course of events as the following : The Jews of 
Babylonia borrowed the New Year's festival of their Gentile 
neighbours. Nicanor's day also came to them and was cele- 
brated in conjunction with the other. As time went on, the true 
history was distorted by legend — the popular mind only held 
firmly to the memory of a remarkable deliverance wrought on 
behalf of the Jews. The myth of Ishtar and Marduk lent itself 
to dramatic treatment, and the heroine and hero donned Jewish 



486 OLD te^aMent history 

garb as Esther and Mordecai, Put into literary form by an 
author who found the folk-story ready to his hand, the book 
travelled back to Palestine. Here a party had arisen who were 
wilHng to forget the merits of the Maccabean princes, and who 
could justify the established festival on ground furnished by the 
new story. The bloodthirsty tone of the narrative agrees very 
well with the time when Pharisees and Sadducees were at swords' 
points, and the figure of a Great King who heard the prayers of 
his Jewish concubine would be congenial to those Scribes who 
were ready to appeal to the Syrian monarch against their own 
(Maccabean) princes. Whether Haman and Vashti are also 
mythological figures, as is now supposed, is a point not essential 
to our understanding of the story. ^ 

The book of Esther found a place in the Canon because it was 
so closely connected with the observance of one of the festivals. 
It belonged, however, to a considerable body of literature which 
comes in the class of folk-stories, the material of which was bor- 
rowed from the mythology or legends of the Gentiles. Such 
stories pass from one nation to another, and are recast so as to 
suit the taste of the readers in each new environment. The fa- 
mous Thousand and One Nights are the mediaeval redaction of 
these oriental tales, and it has even been suggested that Esther 
and Shahrazade are duplicates of the same original. Without go- 
ing so far as to affirm this, we recognise the fact that the her- 
oism of a woman willing to undergo any danger for the sake 
of her nation is a favourite theme for story-tellers in all times. 
It appears again in the book of Judith, which cannot be far re- 
moved in date from Esther. In this story Israel is delivered from 
destruction by Judith, a fair woman who ingratiates herself with 
the Gentile commander and slays him in the drunken sleep which 

^The somewhat complicated problems presented by the Purim festival 
cannot be discussed here. All that can be said concerning the Persian ori- 
gin of the festival was said by Lagarde in his essay, Piirim (1887). The 
hypothesis of a Babylonian origin was advanced by Zimmern in the Zeitschr. 
f. d. Alttest. Wissensch., XI, p. 157 ff., and further developed by Meissner, 
Zeitsch. d. Deutschen Morgenl. Gesellsch., L, p. 296 ff. The comparative 
method was, however, most fully applied by Jensen ; see his letter to Wilde- 
boer in the latter's commentary on the book of Esther, p. 173. Zimmern's 
present theory may be read in Keilinschriften und A lies Testament,^ p. 
5i4ff. An elaborate discussion of all the questions involved (with others) 
may be found in Frazer, The Golden Bough, III,* p. 172 ff. 



THE TRIEST-KINGS 487 

falls upon him after a carouse. The strongly legalistic point of 
view is seen in the author's conviction that the people cannot be 
destroyed so long as they refuse to eat of food ritually unclean. 

In this period also we may place the little story of Bel and the 
Dragon which was inserted in the Greek copies of the book of 
Daniel. The dragon episode is plainly mythological in origin, 
going back to the primeval monster of the Babylonian creation 
story. The discovery of the fraud practised by the priests of 
Bel, on the other hand, is a product of the Jewish imagination, to 
which the impotence of the false gods had become a commonplace. 
In this connexion we may consider also the story of Tobit, which 
has come to us in the Greek Bible. It has none of the blood- 
thirstiness of Esther and Judith and is on this account more 
pleasing than either. Its evident purpose is to confirm the strict 
Jews in the observance of the Law, showing us Tobit suffering for 
his fidelity, but finally vindicated and restored. The demon- 
ology of the book is more crass than anything we have yet con- 
sidered — the heroine is persecuted by a demon who is in love 
with her and who slays seven bridegrooms before the consumma- 
tion of the marriage. The smoke from the heart and liver of a 
fish is sufiicient to banish this troublesome enemy, and we evi- 
dently find here a bit of popular superstition. 

In this case we have a Jew represented as a high official at the 
court of a Gentile king. This figure is repeated in the later 
Jewish literature — Daniel, Zerubbabel, Tobit, Ahikar,^ Mordecai, 
are all examples. No doubt the historical Nehemiah gave the 
precedent for all these figures. But Nehemiah was not the only 
Jew who was able to attain high position at a Gentile court. In 
the second century before Christ, we hear of one Aristobulus, a 
Jewish philosopher, who was a courtier of Ptolemy VI (Philo- 
metor). 

Among the literary monuments of the period we may count 
the second book of Maccabees. This is a work of edification ac- 
cording to the taste of the times, and also a polemic against the 
Maccabean princes. It emphasises the miraculous interferences 
wrought for the benefit of Israel. At the very beginning it urges 
the observance of the Feast of Dedication, not so much because 
of the Maccabean recovery of the Temple, as because the sacred 

^ Ahikar is mentioned in the story of Tobit. Zerubbabel meets us at the 
court of Persia, in the Greek Esdras. 



488 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

fire hidden by Jeremiah had been rediscovered at the return 
from the captivity.^ In the rest of the history prodigies of all 
sorts abound. The narrator is interested in these for their own 
sake and also because he is able by them to enforce his own 
(Pharisaic) point of view. For it is clearly his conviction that 
the observance of the law will bring divine help without the di- 
rect effort of man. The exploits of Judas he cannot ignore, and 
he relates them with satisfaction. But he takes pains to leave out 
of view the differences between Judas and the Assideans, shows 
how scrupulously Judas himself observed the Sabbath, and refuses 
to allow merit to any of Judas's brothers. The result is a cari- 
cature instead of a history, and had we no other account of what 
took place in the period our ideas would be wholly wrong. 

Another monument of Pharisaic thought which has comedown 
to us from about this period is the so-called Book of Jubilees.^ 
This work represents Moses receiving from the Angel of the 
Presence a copy of the heavenly tablet wdiich contained the early 
history of mankind. This is the original which our book pur- 
ports to reproduce; in reality it follows, though with great free- 
dom, the canonical book of Genesis. Its object is to show that 
the Jewish Law had been followed by the Patriarchs. The Bib- 
lical history which the author cherished seemed to him lacking 
in this particular — it did not show Noah and Abraham to be 
righteous according to the Pharisaic standard. In rewriting the 
earlier history from his own point of view, the author was follow- 
ing the precedent set by the Priestly narrative of the Pentateuch, 
and again by the Chronicler. Having in mind theories of verbal 
inspiration and inerrancy, it is hard for us to appreciate this treat- 
ment of a sacred narrative. There are, however, abundant par- 
allels in later times, especially in the allegorical exposition of the 
Old Testament by both Jewish and Christian scholars. 

* This account is in one of the letters which the author prefixes to his 
work, and which he takes from an older source, 2 Mace, i *®-2 '*. 

^ The reader will bear in mind that it is impossible to date some of these 
documents accurately. Jubilees is still an object of controversy in this re- 
spect, some scholars dating it soon after the Maccabean uprising, others 
placing it as late as the second half of the first Christian century. The book 
is preserved in an Ethiopic version and a considerable fragment also in Latin. 
The latest discussion is contained in Charles, The Book of Jjihilees (1902), 
who gives also an English translation. A bibliography may be found in 
Schurer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes,^ III, p. 279. 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 489 

The author's veneration for tradition leads him to emphasise 
the number seven. The earHest evidence of the sacredness of 
this number is the institution of the Sabbath. The Biblical nar- 
rative dates this institution at the creation ; the Book of Jubilees 
tell us specifically that it is continually observed by the angels in 
heaven as it is by Israel on earth. The Law had also emphasised 
the number seven by commanding the Sabbatical year and the 
year of Jubilee. Our author makes this system the basis of his 
whole chronology, telling us how many jubilee periods and how 
many weeks of years had elapsed at each important point in the 
narrative. He makes fifty jubilee periods to have elapsed (2450 
years) between the creation and the exodus. Probably he ex- 
pected the whole duration of the world to fill a hundred jubilees, 
but this he leaves us to conjecture. 

The emphasis laid upon the Law may be shown in the follow- 
ing particulars : Pentecost was observed in heaven until Noah's 
time, when it was first enjoined upon men ; observed by Noah 
till his death, it was forgotten by his children and renewed by 
Abraham. The covenant with Abraham is dated precisely at this 
season of the year. In like manner the Feast of Tabernacles was 
observed in heaven till the time of Abraham, who began its ob- 
servance upon earth. The Passover also is dated from the time, 
not of Moses, but of Abraham. 

It does not surprise us to find that Abraham from his youth 
abhorred the idolatry of his fathers and even burned their idol 
temple with all its contents. Later Judaism is known to have 
expanded these legends, which are also a staple of Mohammedan 
tradition. The sacrifice of Isaac, on the other hand, is no longer 
commanded by God, but suggested by Satan. That the institu- 
tion of tithes is traced to this Patriarch is quite in accord with 
our expectations, for there is some Biblical basis for such a state- 
ment. 

We have already met the theory that the angels who were ap- 
pointed over the nations were perverse or disobedient. Our au- 
thor makes them, rather, the tempters of men. In the days of 
Noah they began to seduce and to befool and to destroy the 
children of men. At the prayer of Noah, God commanded that 
the evil angels should be shut up in prison. But Mastema (Satan), 
their prince, pleaded his office as tempter and his need of assist- 
ance in it, whereupon one-tenth of the number were left free. 



490 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

They have now the poWer of afflicting men with disease. Noah, 
however, was taught how to exorcise them, and we may suppose 
that Jewish exorcists, whom we know to have swarmed in the 
Roman empire, clahiied possession of the secret taught to Noah 
and committed by him to a book. These evil spirits are not 
identical with the angels who sinned by marriage with the daugh- 
ters of men. These, our book claims, have been committed 
without exception to the abyss where they are reserved for the 
judgment of the Great Day.^ 

Concerning the good angels, we learn that they were created on 
the first day of God's. work. In the antediluvian period they 
were sent to teach men righteousness. Pre-eminent among them 
is the angel of revelation by whose mediation the heavenly tablets 
were delivered to Moses — an idea which was familiar to the New 
Testament writers.^ The angels regulate the seasons and the 
course of the heavenly bodies. That the author holds perti- 
naciously to a year of 364 days we have already had occasion to 
remark. His reason for insistence on this point is that if the 
year observed in heaven is not observed on earth the whole 
system of feasts will go wrong : the real Passover, Pentecost, and 
Tabernacles are the ones observed in heaven, and if different ones 
are observed on earth then the holy seasons will be profaned.^ 

Opposition to Gentile customs shows itself in the commentary 
on God's giving clothing to Adam. The occasion for calling 
attention to this was the Greek gymnastic practice, which, as we 
have seen, gave offence in the time of Antiochus. So we find 
Noah enjoining upon his sons ''to practise righteousness and 
cover their secret parts, to bless their Creator, to honour father 
and mother, to love one's neighbour, to keep from fornication, 
and all uncleanness. " * Under the head of uncleanness the eat- 
ing of blood is, of course, included. The prohibition of blood 
was regarded as a primitive and universal law, the violation of 
which has brought all Gentiles under the curse of God. Inter- 
marriage with those under such a curse is consequently an abom- 
ination, and it is here objurgated with great energy — the man 
or woman who is guilty of it is a defiler of the sanctuary. 

1 Jubilees. 10 1^*, 4^2, 5 i-5 cf. Jude, v. «. 

2 Ibid., I 2^-29, 2 ^ cf. Acts, 7 38, 53, Qal. 3 19. 

3 Tbid. , 6 21-38. 

^ Ibid., 720. 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 49I 

This author expects a Messianic time. The course of history 
up to his own day is sketched as one of increasing degeneracy, 
marked by a progressive shortening of men's Hves. But *' in 
those days" men will begin to seek the Law and to turn to- 
ward the ways of righteousness. Then their lives will begin to 
grow longer until they reach the measure of a thousand years. 
In their old age they will retain the strength of youth ; no 
enemy will destroy them, but all their days will be days of bless- 
ing. Such are the general terms in which the good time com- 
ing is described. Little emphasis is laid upon the personal Mes- 
siah. The tribe of Levi is to give princes and judges and chiefs 
to the sons of Jacob. This points to the predominance of the 
high-priests and probably to the continued rule of the Macca- 
bean family. At the same time Judah is promised dominion, 
and it is said that the Gentiles wilLfear before his face. The 
words are put into the mouth of Abraham and might be sup- 
posed to refer to David. But probably the writer expects the 
glory of David's kingdom to be renevVed by one of his sons. In 
other late Jewish writings we find the combination of Levi and 
Judah as the tribes from which the Messiah is to spring.^ 

Alexander at his death (b.c. 76) left the kingdom to his queen 
Alexandra. Josephus tells us that by her husband's advice she 
made peace with the Pharisees, and gave them the leading place 
in her councils. Whether this was the reason, or whether she 
was naturally inclined to follow these religious leaders, her con- 
duct accorded with this programme. '' She restored those prac- 
tices which the Pharisees had introduced according to the tradi- 
tion of their forefathers, but which Hyrcanus had abolished." ^ 
What Pharisaic traditions were restored we are not told. But it 
is evident that the method of enforcing them was the same pur- 
sued by the other party, for the queen was obliged to restrain 
the ferocity of her new counsellors. The members of the royal 
family were no more in harmony witn each other than is usually 
the case in palaces. Aristobulus, the more energetic of Alex- 
andra's two sons, was openly on the side of the Sadducees. 

At the death of the queen (b.c. 67), her two sons were in arms 
against each other. Hyrcanus, the elder, was already in posses- 
sion of the high-priesthood, but Aristobulus was now strong 

' See the note of Charles, Book of Jubilees, p. 188. 
'Josephus, Ant., XIII, 16, i ; Jewish War, I, 5. 



492 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

enough to compel him to resign it and to resign also all claims 
to the royal power. But one Antipater, an Idumean by race, 
who had held high office under Alexandra, saw his opportunity to 
attain power and espoused the cause of Hyrcanus. The fears of 
the prince were wrought upon by representations that he was not 
safe in Jerusalem, and he fled to Aretas, King of the Nabateans. 
Antipater accompanied him and urged Aretas to restore Hyrcanus 
to his rights. This the Arab promised to do on condition of certain 
concessions of territory.^ He found a considerable party of Jews 
oh the side of Hyrcanus — Pharisees probably, since Aristobulus 
was in the hands of the Sadducees. 

The invaders on behalf of Hyrcanus succeeded in shutting up 
Aristobulus in the Temple and his cause was looking desperate, 
when a new power appeared upon the scene. The Romans were 
now regulating affairs in the East, with Pompey the Great as their 
general. One of his officers, Scaurus, appeared at Damascus and 
both the Jewish claimants appeared before him. He took the 
part of Aristobulus, and the patron of Hyrcanus was obliged to 
retreat. Two years later (b.c. 63) Pompey himself appeared at 
Damascus. Both princes appealed to him, as did also a deputa- 
tion of the people who wished that the monarchy might be abol- 
ished and the priestly constitution restored. No doubt the mass 
of the people were tired of the court with its quarrels, its merce- 
naries, and its foreign alliances. They thought they could con- 
tent themselves under foreign governors if only they were allowed 
the free exercise of their religion. This was according to Phari- 
saic tradition, but the rule of the foreigner was yet to show them 
how impossible it is to separate religion and secular affairs. 

Pompey gave ear to the people so far as to command Aristo- 
bulus to restore the priestly constitution, apparently intending 
that he should resign the kingly title and give a share in the ad- 
ministration to the Sanhedrin. In dissatisfaction with the way 
things were going, Aristobulus suddenly left the camp of the 
Romans. To the demand that he surrender the fortresses of the 
country he delayed answer, hoping to prepare Jerusalem for re- 
sistance, but at the appearance of the Roman army he gave up 

1 The Idumeans had been circumcised by John Hyrcanus and thus made 
full citizens of the Jewish commonwealth. But the conviction that the 
Herods were only half Jews came into prominence again and again in this 
last period of Jewish history. 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 493 

the city. Without his consent the more determined or the more 
fanatical of the people seized the Temple and defied the foreigner. 
The strength of the building was such that it had to be reduced 
by regular siege. It took three months to breach the walls, and 
the storming party then put the garrison to the sword. The 
Roman general profaned the shrine by entering where, in theory, 
no one but the high-priest was allowed to enter. But he spared 
the treasures of the Temple and arranged to have the service con- 
tinued without interruption. 

Aristobulus having forfeited his office by his conduct, the high- 
priestly organisation was restored, and Hyrcanus II was recog- 
nised as its head. The districts conquered by his father and 
grandfather were, however, taken away and united with the newly 
organised Roman province of Syria. The principality of Judea 
in its diminished extent was laid under tribute and Aristobulus, 
with a large company of Jewish captives, was carried to Rome, 
where (b.c. 6i) he was shown in the triumph of the great general. 
The independence of the nation was gone for ever. 

The following years were years of disorder. The Romans were 
not always in accord with each other; the Arabs were trouble- 
some neighbours ; the Parthians threatened Syria, and the Roman 
armies were a burden to the province which they were expected 
to defend. Some of the proconsuls were notorious for their ex- 
tortions, and to their oppressions were speedily added the miseries 
of civil war. Alexander, son of Aristobulus, escaped from cap- 
tivity, succeeded in raising a band of soldiers, and made an 
attempt to regain the ancestral throne. After the insurrection 
was quelled, Gabinius, governor of the province, deprived the im- 
potent Hyrcanus of the civil power and divided Judea into five 
districts, each under a council of notables — organised we may 
suppose after the model of the central Sanhedrin. To Hyrcanus 
was left only the care of the Temple. 

The unruly Aristobulus again raised the standard of revolt, 
but was easily overcome and sent in chains to Rome (b.c. 55). 
The next year his son Alexander renewed the attempt, but was 
also defeated. These repeated struggles show the hold which 
the Maccabean princes had on the people. Already we taste the 
quality of the zeal which later brought Jerusalem to destruction. 
One head, however, remained cool in the time of fanaticism — 
the crafty Antipater appreciated the power of the Romans and 



494 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

knew how to make that power work to his advantage. Gabinius 
found him useful in bringing the Jews to a better mind during 
the revolt of Alexander, and further services of this kind did not 
go unrewarded. 

Of Crassus, who succeeded Gabinius, we may say that his little 
finger was thicker than his predecessor's loins. He appropriated 
to himself without ceremony the Temple treasure, now com- 
puted at ten thousand talents. Soon after this, and perhaps on 
this account, we find the Jews again in rebellion. Again they 
were defeated. Thirty thousand unhappy beings are said to have 
been sold into slavery at this time. Antipater was again useful 
to the Romans in this affair. 

In the civil war Caesar attempted to use Aristobulus against 
the Pompeians, but the death of his client frustrated the plan. 
The victory of Caesar over Pompey (b.c. 48) showed Antipater 
on which side his interest lay. He rendered the victor substan- 
tial aid in Egypt, and Caesar rewarded him by making Hyrcanus 
ethnarch of the Jews, and by confirming Antipater in the office 
of administrator. Permission was given to rebuild the walls of 
Jerusalem, and the Jews outside of Palestine received some bene- 
fits. Those in Alexandria were elevated to full citizenship and 
their rights and immunities were set forth on a pillar of bronze. 
Other local decrees exempting the Jews from onerous restrictions 
are dated in the same period. 

The family of Antipater profited by the friendship of the Ro- 
mans — Hyrcanus was too weak or too lazy to concern himself 
with the work of government. With his consent Anti pater's two 
sons were appointed to military command — Phasael the older in 
Judea, Herod in Galilee. Both were able and energetic men, 
but Herod, at this time only twenty-five years of age, especially 
distinguished himself. His province was infested with banditti, 
a natural consequence of the unsettled state of the country. 
Herod made short work with these, putting their chief Hezekiah 
with a number of his followers to death. A collision with Jewish 
prejudice was the result. The theory of the Sanhedrin was that 
they as the supreme council were also the supreme court, and that 
the power of life and death was in their hands. The Jewish 
bandits had been executed without due process of law, and 
Herod was summoned to give account. He appeared at Jerusa- 
lem with an armed force and it required the severe conscience of 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 495 

a revered teacher, Shemaiah by name, to hold the court faithful 
to its duty. As it turned out, Herod escaped sentence only be- 
cause the Roman Proconsul warned Hyrcanus against allowing 
harm to come to him. The case was fitted to throw light upon 
the conflict of jurisdiction, a conflict which was unavoidable in 
the circumstances, but which none the less kept the nation in a 
state of irritation from this time forward. 

This is not the place to give a biography of Herod. His 
energy, his unscrupulousness, and his shiftiness, all gave him value 
in the eyes of his Roman masters. From his father he learned 
or inherited the art of getting on the winning side. The Idu- 
mean dynasty " took part at first for Pompey, then for Caesar 
the father, then for Cassius and Brutus, then for the Triumvirs, 
then for Antony, then for Caesar the son ; fidelity varied as did 
the watchword. Nevertheless, this conduct is not to be denied 
the merit of consistency and firmness." ^ The policy was not 
altogether new ; something of the same kind was observed in 
Jonathan's dealings wuth the Syrian crown. But the Idumeans 
were much more proficient. 

Herod did what he could to give his posterity a claim to the 
throne by marrying Mariamne, the granddaughter both of 
Hyrcanus and of Aristobulus. ^ Between the betrothal and the 
marriage, the fortunes of the young governor fell to their lowest 
ebb. In the year 40 B.C. the Parthians overran Syria. An- 
tigonus, the heir of Aristobulus and representative of the Mac- 
cabean claims, secured their aid by the promise of money and by 
agreeing to hand over to them five hundred Jewish maidens. The 
invaders got possession of Jerusalem, capturing Phasael and 
Hyrcanus, both of whom they put into chains. Herod with 
difficulty got his family and a few faithful followers into security 
at Masada, a stronghold in the Wilderness of Judah. ^ Leaving 
them in safety he made his way to Rome, where he found a wel- 
come from Antony and Octavian, and by decree of the Senate 
was made king of Judea. 

The decree of the Senate was in effect a permission to con- 

* Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire (1886), II, p. 179. 

2 She was daughter of Alexander, son of Aristobulus II ; her mother was 
Alexandra, daughter of Hyrcanus II. 

^ On the locality, now Sebbeh, see Baedeker, Palestine and Syria,^ p, 
141 ff. 



49^ OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

quer a kingdom if he could, for the country was actually in pos- 
session of his enemies. But the energy and ability which had 
marked his career as governor of Galilee were not lacking in this 
crisis. With an army recruited from Samaritans, Idumeans, 
and mercenaries of all sorts, Herod soon reduced Galilee and 
defeated the adherents of Antigonus. When it came to the 
siege of Jerusalem he had Roman help, at first very grudgingly 
given. ^ After the usual obstinate resistance the city was taken 
by storm. Antigonus was taken to Antioch by the Romans and 
there beheaded. Herod was in possession of his kingdom, 
B.C. 37, nearly three years after his nomination to it by the 
Senate. 

The state of feeling among the people during these commotions 
is revealed by a little collection of poems which has come down 
to us under the name " Psalms of Solomon." Their author is a 
member of the sect of Pharisees. The first thing that attracts our 
notice is his opinion of the Maccabean rulers. In their over- 
throw by the Romans he sees the just judgment of God. These 
princes, sons of Israel, have profaned the sanctuary in which they 
ministered. Their luxury and their sins are worse than those of 
the heathen. The ordinance of God in favour of David and his 
seed has been set aside by these usurpers ; therefore He has over- 
thrown them and sent their seed out of the land. ^ The judg- 
ment thus described is the one inflicted by Pompey. But though 
Pompey was the instrument of the divine decree, his defile- 
ment of the Temple must call down vengeance. His ignomin- 
ious death in Egypt is represented as a punishment for his sac- 
rilege. 

If now the monarchy of the Hasmoneans was looked upon as 
a usurpation, that of Herod must have been tenfold more offen- 
sive. The Maccabeans were, at any rate, pure-blooded Israelites ; 
Herod was only an Iduraean with a thin varnish of Judaism. 
The Messianic expectation had already taken such shape that it 
would be content with nothing less than a miraculous restoration 
of the throne of David to an undoubted descendant of that king. 
The fervent, even feverish, desire for this consummation is one 
of the characteristics of the period : 

' 'Antony sent him troops, but the officers were bribed to inaction by Antig- 
onus. 

2Ps. Sol. I, 2 3-6, I7*-12. 



THE PRIEST-KINGS 497 

" See, O Lord, and raise up for them a king. 

The son of David at the time Thou hast appointed ; 

That he may rule over Israel, Thy servant. 

Gird him with strength to crush unjust rulers, 

Purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who tread it down to ruin. 

In wisdom and righteousness let him drive out sinners from our 

heritage ; 
Breaking in pieces the pride of the sinner, like a potter's vessel ; 
With a rod of iron breaking all their strength." * 

It was evident from the outset that a Herod could not meet 
this expectation. All his endeavours to conciliate Jewish feel- 
ing were met by sullen apathy, or by fierce resistance, and the 
resistance was motived by the belief that the Messiah would 
appear on behalf of the faithful. 

With the establishment of Herod upon the throne of Jerusa- 
lem, Old Testament history may properly end. Herod was sim- 
ply the agent of the Roman power ; the independence of the 
nation was gone. In fact, as we look at the Jewish people in the 
time of Herod w-e see them no longer a nation, but an agglomer- 
ation of sects united indeed by their common blood, but separated 
by mutual distrust and hatred. A small fraction was bound to 
the reigning family by motives of self-interest; the Sadducees 
w^ere partisans of the Maccabean dynasty and hoped for a hieroc- 
racy in which theirs should be the dominant place; the Phari- 
sees were students and expounders of the Law of Moses, hoping 
for a Messianic time in w^hich the Sanhedrin would bear rule in 
the house of God, with themselves in the majority. Among 
their follow^ers two parties developed ; one was made up of the 
more impatient spirits who were ready to draw the sword for the 
cause of God and His Law ; the other w^as the party of the quiet 
in the land, who were willing to suffer and wait for God's time. 
The impatient souls soon began to band themselves together as 
Zealots ; the extremists in the party of quietism began to retire 
from the world in monastic communities, and are known as 
Essenes. Thus Judaism w^as hopelessly divided into factions 
hating each other, some of them hating the Gentiles with equal 

^Ps. Sol. 17 2^-"^^. The consent of scholars in favour of dating the Psalms 
of Solomon in this period is broken by Frankenberg, who refers them to the 
early Maccabean period (Die Daiinutg der Psalme7i Salomd's, 1 896); see 
Schiirer, Gesch. des Jiid. Volkes,'* III, p. 150 flf. 



49^ OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 

ardour. Their jealousies and bickerings and their spasmodic out- 
breaks against the Roman power do not belong in an Old Testa- 
ment history. 

But during the period we have now reached, the Judaism out- 
side of Palestine was growing in importance. We have already 
seen that colonies of Jews were settled in Greek cities before the 
Maccabean uprising, and that emigration was stimulated by the 
internal troubles of Judea. In the Roman period the Jews were 
favoured by Caesar; and Herod the Great did as much for the 
people to which he claimed to belong, by defending their liber- 
ties in Greek cities, as he did by his rule in Jerusalem. It is 
strange that a world mission should have been assigned to these 
Jews of the Dispersion, for they were not usually hked by their 
Gentile neighbours. Their shrewdness in trade, their clannish- 
ness, their ill-concealed abhorrence of the gods and temples, 
their tenacity of Sabbath and circumcision — all these things 
caused them to be regarded as outlandish and uncongenial. But 
they had some things which made a deep impression on the more 
thoughtful Gentiles. They had a serious faith in God and they 
had the synagogue in which that faith was taught. They also 
had a Bible, a Book of God, the source of instruction and of 
comfort to despondent or perplexed souls. While Judaism in 
Palestine was nearing its end, the Judaism of the Dispersion 
was preparing to receive and propagate the new and expansive 
religion of Jesus Christ. 



APPENDIX 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 



The following is a list of the principal dates assumed in this 
work. The reader should bear in mind that in many cases they 
can be no more than approximate.^ 



Palestine under Babylonian rule. ^ 



B. C. 
2000 

- Introduction of the Babylonian script. \ 

1400 Egypt in control of Palestine. \ 

Hebrew clans sojourning in Kadesh. ] 

1300 The Palestinian cities nominally under Egyptian rule, but harassed ,! 

by invasions of the Bedawin. ] 

1270 A clan called Israel already settled in Canaan. j 

Period of Israel's Judges, j 

The Song of Deborah. ^ 

1030 Saul establishes the Benjamite Kingdom. j 

loio David's coronation at Hebron. \ 

Writing down of poems hitherto circulated orally. 
973 Solomon's coronation. 
963 Dedication of the Temple. 

Collection of folk stories ; traditions of the Patriarchs and of the 

Judges. ; 

Possible beginning of legal literature (collection of decisions as i 

precedents). j 

The Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49). 1 

933 Jeroboam leads the revolt of the northern tribes. 
Earliest biography of David. 
Invasion by Shishak. 
900 Book of the Covenant (Ex. 20 22-23). ' 

880 Omri founds a new dynasty in Israel. 1 

854 Ahab at the battle of Karkar. - ■ 

Conflict of the Baal party and the Yahweh party in Israel ; Elijah 
leader of the Yahweh party. 
842 Jehu of Israel and Athaliah of Judah. j 

The Blessing of Moses (Deut. 23)- j 

800 Legends of Elijah and Elisha written down. | 

783 Jeroboam II. 1 

The Yahwistic narrative (J). 
750 The Elohistic narrative (E). 
Amos. 

* A Students' C/iarl of Biblical History, prepared by Professor Kent in ] 

1895, will be found useful, as also the table in Kautzsch, Abriss der Ge- j 

schickte des alttestamentlichen Schriftums, 1894 (now published in English). i 

499 I 



500 APPENDIX ; 

B. C. 

743 Decline of the northern kingdom. j 

Hosea. i 

740 Beginning of Isaiah's career. ■ 

736 Ahaz king in Judah. i 

735 Invasion of Judah by Israel and Syria; tribute paid by Ahaz to J 

Tiglath-pileser of Assyria. 1 

Isaiah opposes the policy of Ahaz. ; 

Deportation of inhabitants from many districts of Israel. 
721 Fall of Samaria, deportation of a considerable number of its inhabit- 
ants, and importation of foreigners. 
720 Hezekiah. 

Culmination of Isaiah's prophetic activity, i 

Micah 1-3. 

701 Invasion of Sennacherib. ^ 

Religious reforms under the influence of Isaiah. ' 

692 Manasseh. ] 

Religious reaction with persecution of the prophetic party. 
640 Josiah. 

628 The Scythian invasion. ; 

Beginning of Jeremiah's activity. j 

623 Finding of the Book of Instruction (Deut. 12-19, 26, 28) in the i 

Temple. ; 

Religious reforms on the basis of this Book. ^ 

620 Nahum. | 

Zephaniah j 

Habakkuk I and 2. j 

608 Josiah slain at Migdol. j 

606 Fall of Nineveh. | 

605 Battle of Carchemish. ] 

First edition of Jeremiah's discourses. I 

597 First deportation of Judaites to Babylonia in company with Jehoiachin. ; 

Zedekiah king ; continued activity of Jeremiah. i 

593 Ezekiel begins to preach to the exiles. j 

586 Fall of Jerusalem. j 

Jeremiah's latest discourses. ] 

Ezekiel's constructive activity. • ; 

561 Release of Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach. j 

Enlarged edition of Deuteronomy. ": 

Deuteronomistic redaction of Judges and Kings. - 

550 Lamentations. ' 

The Holiness Code (Lev. 11, 17-26). 5 

539 Cyrus takes possession of Babylon. j 
521 Darius I. 

Haggai and Zechariah (1-8). 

516 The second Temple dedicated. j 

450 Malachi. j 

400 Job. ' 

Isaiah 40-66. ^ 

385 Mission of Nehemiah; rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. ■ 

The Priestly narrative of the Pentateuch (P). < 
350 Combination of the Priestly narrative with the older book of the L?w 

and addition of all extant priestly traditions. ^ 

Ruth. ; 

Joel. • i 

Isaiah, 24-27. ( 

333 Alexander takes possession of Syria. • 



APPENDIX 501 



320 Ptolemy I captures Jerusalem. 
250 Chronicles. 

Zechariah, 9-14. 

The Song of Songs. 

Jonah. 

The nucleus of the Book of Proverbs. 
200 Book of Jesus ben Sira. 

The Book of Proverbs completed. 
180 Ecclesiastes. 

175 Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
168 Desecration of the Temple. 
167 Revolt of the Maccabees. 
165 The Book of Daniel. 

Dedication of the Temple. 
161 Jonathan succeeds Judas. 

Translation of the Pentateuch into Greek in Alexandria. 
153 Jonathan appointed high-priest by Demetrius. 

142 Simon succeeds Jonathan and is appointed high-priest and prince by 
the Jewish people. 
. Final redaction ot the Book of Psalms. 
134 John Hyrcanus. 

Active opposition of the Pharisaic party to the Maccabean house. 

The First Book of Maccabees. 
103 Alexander Jannasus. 

The Book of Enoch. 
100 The Book of Esther. 

The Book of Judith. 

The Second Book of Maccabees. 

The Book of Jubilees. 
63 Pompey in Syria. 

The Psalms of Solomon. 
40 Herod appointed King of Judea by the Roman Senate. 
37 Herod in possession of Jerusalem. 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS 



PAGE 

Aaron and his Sons 403 

Abimelech 97 

Abner and David 139 

Abraham 5^ 

Absalom's Revolt 148 

Achish, King of Gath 131 

Adonijah 152 

AduUam 135 

Ahab 187 

Ahab and Jezebel 187 

Ahab and Judah 188 

Ahaz 234 

Ahaz and Assyria 227 

Ahaz besieged 235 

Ahaz visits Tiglath-pileser 227 

Alexander Balas 467 

Alexander Jannaeus 482 

Alexander, Legend of 413 

Alexander the Great 413 

Alexandra, Queen 491 

Alexandria, Jews in 415 

Alkimus, High-priest 463 

Altar 167 

Amalekites and David 132 

Amaziah 207 

Amaziah and Jehoash 207 

Ammonite Invasion 114 

Amon, King of Judah 259 

Amorites, Conflict with 76 

Amos 211 

Angels 14, 19 

Angels, Doctrine of 355 

Angels, Fall of the 484 

Angels in the Book of Daniel . . 457 

Angels in the Book of Jubilees. 489 

Animal Worship 269 

Anointing of Saul 109 

Anthropomorphism 18 

Antiochus the Great 416 

Antiochus III 441 

Antiochus IV, Accession of 442 

Antiochus IV and Egypt. . .442, 444 

Antiochus IV at Jerusalem 444 

Antiochus IV, Death of 461 

Antiochus V 461 

Antiochus VI 468 

Antiochus VII 478 



PAGE 

Antipater 492 

Apocalypses 45 1 

Apocalyptic Expectation 411 

Apollonius, Defeat of 449 

Aristeas, Letter of 476 

Aristobulus 1 482 

Aristobulus II 492 

Ark, The 71 

Ark, Capture of the 112 

Ark brought to Jerusalem, The. 144 

Ark of Yahweh, The 1 1 1 

Artaxerxes 382 

Artaxerxes, Decree of 390 

Artaxerxes, Letter to 350 

Artaxerxes Ochus 410 

Asa's Alliance with Syria 186 

Assassination 89 

Ashurbanipal 258 

Assideans, The 448 

Assyria 194 

Assyrian Policy, The 225 

Athaliah's Usurpation 203 

Atonement, Day of 405 

Baal and Yahweh 171, 222 

Baal in Israel 1 72 

Baal Perazim 135 

Baal, The Tyrian 189 

Baasha 183 

Babylon captured by Cyrus 342 

Babylonian Conceptions 18 

Babylonian Flood-story 28 

Babylonian Influence 22 

Bacchides 463 

Barak 92 

Baruch, Jeremiah's Scribe 289 

Bel and the Dragon 487 

Belshazzar 456 

Benhadad and Ahab 1 88 

Benjamin, War upon 107 

Berossus 28 

Bethel 45, 220 

Bethel and Dan 180 

Beth-horon, Battle of 82 

Beth-shemesh 113 

Beth-zacharias, Battle of 462 

Blessing of Jacob 41, 175 

503 



504 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS 



PAGE 

Blood, Efficacy of 325 

Blood Revenge 89, 1 74 

Body-guard, The 203 

Book of Instruction, The 260 

Bulls, Golden 181 

Caesar and the Jews 494 

Cain 23 

Cain's Genealogy 23 

Caleb ,- 84 

Calves, The Golden 180 

Canaan before the Conquest 77 

Canaan, Conquest of 73 

Canaanite Peoples 74 

Canaanite Religion 190 

Canaanites and Israelites 172 

Canaanites, Strength of the 86 

Captivity of Israel 229 

Carchemish, Battle of 282 

Chasidim, The 448, 464 

Chasidim, Programme of the.. 456 

Chedorlaomer 37 

Cherubim, The 167, 303 

Chronicler, Method of the 345 

Chronicles, Books of 4, 419 

Chronology .21, 202 

Chronology of the Flood 32 

Chronology of Hezekiah's Reign 238 

Circumcision 66 

Circumcision in the Exile 328 

City, Importance of the Greek. 417 

Concubinage 1 74 

Confusion of Tongues, The 13 

Conquest, Earliest Account of 

the 83 

Corruption of Judah 253 

Corvee, The 157 

Covenant between Israel and 

Yahweh 69, 70 

Covenant, Book of the 174 

Covenant in Deuteronomy 268 

Covenant of Josiah 262 

Covenant with Noah, The ^3 

Covenants between Israel and 

Canaanites 79 

Creation, Babylonian Account of 18 

Creation, P's Account 16 

Creation Story, The 13 

Criticism, Higher 2 

Cyrus, Career of 341 

Cyrus, his Proclamation 344 

Damascus and Assyria 207 

Damascus, Fall of 228 

Dan and Bethel 180 

Daniel, The Book of 45 1 



PAGE 

Danites, The 85 

Darius, Letter to 351 

David and Abner 139 

David at Hebron 133 

David, Introduction of 122 

David made King 142 

David and Michal 123, 145 

David and Nabal 130 

David an Outlaw 129 

David, Saul's Jealousy of ^. 123 

David's Character 154 

David's Court 147 

David's Foreign Wars 146 

Day of Yahweh, The 216 

Dead Sea 44 

Deborah 92 

Decalogue, The Earliest 68 

Decalogue of J 210 

Dedication, The Feast of 460 

Dedication of the Temple 459 

Deluge, The 26 

Deluge Stories 30 

Demetrius, King of Syria 463 

Deportations, The Assyrian 226 

I^eportation, The First 285, 286 

Desecration of the Temple 444 

Deuteronomic Literature 332 

Deuteronomist's Ideal, The... 271 
Deuteronomy and the Prophets. 273 
Deuteronomy, Influence of.... 264 

Deuteronomy, Purpose of 266 

Deuteronomy, Supplements to. 332 

Dinah, The Story of - 41 

Dirge over Abner 141 

Dispersion of Jews, The 498 

Divorce of Gentile Wives 394 

Dry Bones, Ezekiel's Vision of. 318 

E, Work of 219 

Ecclesiastes 436 

Eden 24 

Edom conquered by Amaziah.. 207 

Edom and Israel 41 

Edom, Revolt of 1 70 

Egypt and Antiochus 442, 444 

Egypt and Assyria 279 

Egypt and Hezekiah 247 

Egypt and Israel 227 

Egypt and Judah 242 

Egypt, Sojourn in 54 

Ehud 90 

Ekron's Revolt 242 

El Amarna Tablets, The.. -.36, 76 

Elijah 190. 19I 

Elijah at Mount Carmel 192 

Elijah and Jehu 193 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS 



505 



PAGE 

Elijah, Memoirs of 209 

Elisha's Death 206 

Eli's Sons Ill 

Elohist, The 219 

Eltekeh, Battle of 243 

Enoch, The Book of 483 

En Rogel 152 

Ephod, Gideon's 96 

Ephraim' s Revolt 1 78 

Epicureanism 438 

Esau a Clan Name 39 

Esarhaddon and Egypt 258 

Esther, The Book of 485 

Evil-merodach 327 

Exclusiveness, Postexilic 399 

Exiles' Condition in Babylonia. 301 

Exiles, Expectations of the 294 

Exodus, Narrative of 52 

Ezekiel 302 

Ezekiel's Call 302 

Ezekiel, his Character 326 

Ezekiel's Individualism 311 

Ezekiel's Symbols 304 

Ezekiel's Theory of the Divine 

Justice 306 

Ezra and Nehemiah 345 

Ezra, Story of his Mission 390 

Fall of Man, The 16 

Famine in David's Time 1 50 

Fasting 119 

Feast of Dedication 460 

Festivals 67 

Flood, The 26 

Gabriel, The Angel 457 

Gath, David subject to 131 

Gedaliah, Babylonian Governor 297 

Genealogies 20 

Gentile Customs opposed 490 

Gibeah of Benjamin 107 

Gibeon, Battle of 1 38 

Gibeonites, The 150 

Gideon 95 

Gihon 153 

Gilboa, Battle of 127 

Gilead, The Jews in 460 

Gymnasium in Jerusalem 443 

God's Choice of Israel 373 

Gog, Ezekiel's Vision of 316 

Gog and Magog 316 

Goliath 135 

Gorgias, Defeat of 450 

Goshen 61 

Greek Culture 443 

Greek Influence in Palestine 417 



PAGE 

Greek Religion 418 

Greek Version, The 476 

Habakkuk, The Book of 285 

Haggai, his Preaching 353 

Haggai and Zechariah 349 

Hair, Samson's 103 

Hammurabi, Laws of 173 

Heathenism in Judah 262 

H ebron 133 

Hellenising Influences 4^3 

Herod ^94 

Herod made King 495 

Hezekiah and Egypt 247 

Hezekiah and Sennacherib .... 243 

Hezekiah's Accession 238 

Hezekiah's Reforms 239 

Higher Criticism, The 2 

High-places Destroyed 262 

High-priesthood, The 467 

Hiram and Solomon 1 59 

Historical Books 3 

History, The Hebrew Scheme of 11 

Holiness Code, The ^;^^ 

Holiness of Yahweh 322 

Horeb, Elijah at 192 

Horeb and Sinai 64 

Hosea and Amos 222 

Hosea and the Monarchy 225 

Hosea, The Book of 221 

Hoshea, King of Israel 228 

Human Sacrifice 100, 235 

Hyrcanus II 491 

Idolatry after the Exile 378 

Idolatry under Manas'seh 256 

Idolatry in the Temple 305 

Idolatry, Suppression of 266 

Idols, Contempt of 371 

Idols in the Temple 269 

Isaiah and Sennacherib 246 

Isaiah's Faith 251 

Isaiah's Politics 236 

Ishbaal 128, 136 

Israel, Early Mention 75 

Israel, Lack of Unity in 88 

Israel and the Canaanites 99 

Israel's Disunion 106 

Israel's Foreign Policy 224 

Israel's Prophetic Mission 371 

Israel's Restoration - 318 

J, The Book of 14, 210 

Jabesh Gilead 114, 128 

Jachin and Boaz 165 

Jacob 43 



So6 



INDEX OF SUBJECT^ 



PAGE 

Jacob, The Name of a People . . 38 

Jacob's Sons 40 

Jael and Sisera 93 

Jason and Onias 443 

Jealousy Ordeal, The 405 

Jehoahaz of Israel 206 

Jehoahaz of Judah 281 

Jehoash of Israel 206 

Jehoash and Amaziah 207 

Jehoash's Coronation 204 

Jehoiachin carried captive 284 

Jehoiakim 28 1 

Jehoshaphat 197 

Jehu anointed 198 

Jehu and Assyria 201 

Jehu's suppression of Baal- 
worship 200 

Jephthah 99 

Jephthah's Daughter 100 

Jeremiah, Writing of his Book. 289 

Jeremiah and the Scythians 275 

Jeremiah and Zedekiah 296 

Jeremiah arrested 283 

Jeremiah imprisoned 295 

Jeremiah's Character 286 

Jeremiah's Pessimism 278 

Jeroboam ben Nebat 171, 177 

Jeroboam's Reign 180 

Jeroboam's Revolt 1 78 

Jeroboam II 208 

Jerusalem, Affection for 473 

Jerusalem captured by David .. 136 

Jerusalem, Disorders in 443 

Jerusalem invested by Nebu- 
chadrezzar 294 

Jerusalem, Rebuilding of the 

Wall 385 

Jerusalem taken by Jehoash 207 

Jerusalem's Sin , 307 

Jews, Independence of the 468 

Jezebel 187 

Jezebel's Death 200 

Joab and Abner 140 

Job, The Book of 363 

Joel, Book of 408 

John Hyrcanus 478 

Jonadab ben Rechab - 191, 291 

Jonah, The Book of 425 

Jonathan 116 

Jonathan's Transgression 120 

Jonathan Maccabeus 466 

Joram at Jezreel 196 

Joshua 80 

Joshua the Chief Priest 356 

Josiah's Accession 260 

Josiah, Character, of 280 



PAGE 

Josiah's Reforms 265 

Josiah Slain 279 

Jotham 233 

Jubilees, Book of 6, 488 

Judah 94 

Judaism, Rise of 389 

Judas Maccabeus 449 

Judas Maccabeus, Death of 465 

Judges, Book of 6, 87 

Judges, Nature of their Office. . 88 

Judgment of the Gentiles 409 

Justice, Ezekiel's Theory of... 311 

Justice, Theory of the Divine. . 363 

Kadesh 62, 69 

Karkar, Battle of 195 

Keilah, David at 135 

Kenites, The 93 

Kingdom of God, The 379 

Koheleth 436 

Korah, The Story of 404 

Lamech 24 

Lamentations, The Book of 340 

Lavers in the Temple 166 

Law, Embodiment of Wisdom 

in the 429 

Law, Introduction of the 400 

Law of the Hebrews 1 74 

Legalism, First Stage of 274 

Leontopolis, Temple at 446 

Levi, Choice of 403 

Levites, The 5 

Levites, Ezekiel's Regulations. 324 

Lions, Ravages of 231 

Literature, Early 104 

Lot, The Sacred 1 20 

Lot, The Story of 47 

Lysias, Defeat of 451 

Maccabean Dynasty established 470 

Maccabean Success 459 

Maccabees, The 449 

Maccabees, First Book of 483 

Maccabees, Second Book of . . . 487 

Ma99eba, The 45, 220, 267 

Mahanaim 1 28 

Malachi, Book of 360 

Manasseh, King of Judah 254 

Manetho 55 

Mattathias, Revolt of 448 

Media and Nineveh 276 

Megiddo, Battle of 279 

Menahem of Israel 226 

Menelaus 444 

Mephibosheth 1 50 

Meribbaal 150 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS 



507 



PAGE 
Meribah 62 

Mcrodach-baladan 241 

Merom, Battle of 82 

Mesha of Moab 197 

Messiah in the Book of Enoch, 

The 483 

Messiah, Zerubbabel the 357 

Messianic Expectation 475, 491 

Messianic Faith, Israel's 252 

Messianic Hope, The 338,424 

Messianic Hope, Zechariah's. . 358 

Messianic King, The 320 

Micah, The Prophet 252 

Micaiah 195 

Michal and David 123, 145 

Michal returned 139 

Michmash, Battle of 117 

Midianite Invasion 95 

Midrash 6 

Migrations 73 

Mizpah 450 

Moabite Revolt, The 196 

Moloch 263 

Monarchy, Rise of the 1 14 

Moses 56 

Moses, Blessing of 209 

Moses, The Song of 291 

Murder, Punishment of 174 

Nabal and David 130 

Nabonidus 342 

Nabopolassar 277 

Naboth 187 

Nahash, the Ammonite 114 

Nahum, Book of 277 

Nazirite, The 103 

Nehemiah 382 

Nehemiah, Importance of 411 

Nebiim 109 

Nebuchadrezzar besieges Jeru- 
salem 294 

Nebuchadrezzar, Death of 327 

Nebuchadrezzar in Palestine 283 

Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah 284 

Nehushtan 239 

Nicanor, Defeat of 464 

Nineveh, Fall of 277 

Noah 27 

Nob, Destruction of 125 

Nomad Life 43 

Obed-edom 144 

Omri 183 

Omri, The House of 184 

Onias, High-priest 443 

Othniel 89 



PAGE 

P 12 

P's Flood-story 31 

Palestine, Situation of 73 

Paneas, Battle of 441 

Parthians in Syria, The 495 

Passover, The 67 

Passover, Josiah's 267 

Patriarchs, History of the 35 

Patriarchal Period, The 48 

Pekah invades Judah 233 

Pharaoh Hophra 295 

Pharaoh Necho 279 

Pharisees, Rise of the 479 

Philistines, The 102 

Philistine Campaigns, David's. 136 

Philistine Power, The 114 

Philistine Supremacy 106 

Plagues, The 57 

Plague in David's Time, The.. 151 

Pompey the Great 492 

Popular Assembly, The Jewish. 468 

Priest-code, The 4 

Priestly Writer, The ii, 35, 400 

Priests, Ezekiel's Regulations for 323 

Priests, Income of 205 

Prophet, The no 

Prophetic Canon, The 408 

Prophetic Guilds, The 193 

Proverbs, The Book of 432 

Psalms, The Book of 471 

Psalms of Solomon 496 

Ptolemy I at Jerusalem 415 

Purim, Feast of 485 

Qedeshim, The 262 

Queen of Heaven, Worship of the 298 

Rabshakeh before Jerusalem. . . 244 

Ramoth Gilead 195 

Reaction under Manasseh 255 

Rechabites, The 29 1 

Redeemer of Israel, The 373 

Red Sea, Crossing of the 60 

Rehoboam at Shechem 177 

Rephaim, Valley of 135 

Restoration, Ezekiel's Vision of 

the 314 

Resurrection, Doctrine of the. . 484 
Return, Chronicler's Theory of 

the 346 

Revolt of the Ten Tribes 178 

Rezin of Damascus 226 

Rezon of Damascus 171 

Ritual, Jeremiah's Attitude 288 

Ritual, Popular Conception of . . 213 

Rizpah 138 



5o8 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS 



PAGE 

Rizpah's Devotion 150 

Romans, Antiochus IV and the . 444 

Romans in Syria, The 493 

Ruth, The Book of 398 

Sabbath, The 20, 329 

Sacred Lot, The 120 

Sacred Trees 46 

Sacrifice, Prophetic View of 214 

Sadducees, The 480 

Sagas, Nature of 42 

Samaria, Fall of 229 

Samaritan Text 22 

Samaritan, Settlers, The 231 

Samaritan Schism, The 399 

Samson loi 

Samuel 108 

Samuel, Books of 7 

Samuel as Judge iii 

Sanballat 384 

Sanctuaries, Israelite 46 

Sanhedrin, The 481 

Sanhedrin, Herod and the 494 

Sargon 229 

Sargon's Invasion of Philistia.. 242 

Satan 356 

Satan in the Book of Job 365 

Saul's Character 127 

Saul's Death 133 

Saul and Samuel 108 

Saul and the Gibeonites 149 

Saul and the Prophets no 

Saul in David's Power 131 

Saul's Jealousy of David 123 

Saul's Later Years 126 

Saul's Mania 122 

Saul's Vow 119 

Scribes, Importance of the 436 

Scribes, The*. 430, 497 

Scythian Invasion, The 275 

Sea, The Molten 166 

Seleucus, Kingdom of 416 

Sennacherib's Invasion 243 

Sennacherib's Retreat 244 

Serpent, The 13 

Serpent, The Copper 239 

Serpent Worship 240 

Seth, Genealogy of 20 

Seventy Weeks of Daniel 455 

Sexual Life, Religion and the.. 336 

Shallum 219 

Shalmaneser II 194 

Shalmaneser IV 228 

Sheba's Revolt 149 

Shechem, Revolt of 98 

Shiloh 112 

Shimei 149 



PAGE i 

Shishak's Invasion 184 ! 

Simon Maccabeus 468 ' 

Simon Maccabeus, Murder of.. 478 ' 

Sinai 62flf 

Sin-offerings 325, 407 ; 

Sirach 427 

Sisera 91 i 

Slavery 1 74 \ 

So, King of Egypt 228 ' 

Sodom, Destruction of 45,48 I 

Solomon, Psalms of 496 i 

Solomon's Buildings 162 ^ 

Solomon's Coronation 153 

Solomon's Harem 160 \ 

Solomon's Palace 162 | 

Solomon's Policy 156 j 

Solomon's Wealth 159 i 

Solomon's Wisdom 160 ■ 

Song of Moses, The 291 I 

Song of Songs 426 j 

Sons of God 14 j 

Spirit of Yahweh 103 | 

Sufferings, Meaning of Israel's. 373 h 

Swine, Uncleanness of 334 

Synagogue, The 434 

Syncretism 190 ■ 

Syncretism, Samaritan 231 

Syncretism of Solomon . 169 

Syria and Asa 186 

Syrian Deluge Story 30 

Tabernacle, The 71 j 

Tabernacle, Account of the 402 1 

Taboo 334 I 

Talio 174 j 

Tammuz in the Temple 306 

Tatnai, Governor of Syria 352 

Temple, The i6iff 

Temple, Changes in the 236 

Temple, Chronicler's Estimate of ! 

the 422 

Temple Desecrated 444 

Temple of Ezekiel, The 321 

Temple, Haggai's Exhortation. 349 

Temple, Importance of the 271 ■ 

Temple Income, The 204 ; 

Temple, Rededication of the... 459 1 

Temple Servants 170 j 

Temple Service, Ben Sira's De- ; 

scription 43 1 

Ten Tribes, The : - - 230 j 

Teraphim, The 124 j 

Theophanies 46 

Tibni 184 ' 

Tiglath-pileserlll 225 j 

Tiglath-pileser at Damascus... 236 
Tribal Names 38 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS 



509 



PAGE 

Tribal Organization, The 173 

Tribes of Israel, The 94 

Trypho 468 

Trypho proclaims himself King 468 

Unity of God 270 

Unity of the Sanctuary 270 

Urim andThummim 121 

Uzzah, Death of 144 

Uzziah 232 

Vicarious Suffering 374 

Wilderness of Judah 129 

Wilderness Sojourn, The 61 

Wilderness Wandering 65 

Wisdom Literature, The 427 

Wisdom, Praise of 428 

Woman, Sacredness of 337 



PAGE 

Vahweh, God of the Desert. 68, 190 

Yahweh, God of Israel 104 

Vahweh a jealous God 266 

Vahweh a God of War 94 

Vahweh, God of the Whole 

Earth : 213 

Vahweh, Wrath of 212 

Vahwist, Work of the 210 

Zadok, Family of 324 

Zechariah of Israel 226 

Zechariah, his Visions 354 

Zedekiah and Jeremiah 296 

Zedekiah captured 296 

Zedekiah, King of Judah 292 

Zephaniah. The Book of 276 

Zerubbabel 351 

Ziklag 132 

Zimri 183 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES 



Genesis. 

PAGE 

2, 10-15 24 

4, 1 7-24 20 

4. 23f 24 

5> 1-32 20 

6, 1-4 14 

6, 5 27 

8, 6 27 

10 38 

11,1-9 13 

14 37 

18,23-33 250 

21 37 

25,1-6 39 

25,12-17 39 

27, 39^ 41 

28 45 

34 42 

35, 20 220 

36 39 

49 40, 175 

Exodus. 

3.9-25 53 

3.14 57 

4,24-26 67 

6,2-9 53 

8, 26 59 

14,1-3 60 

17,1-8 62 

20-23 174 

23,12-19 69 

23,29 231 

33,7 402 

33, 14 68 

34 68, 210 

35-40 403 

Leviticus. 

10,1-5 403 

II 333 

16 403,405 

17.26 S33 

18,6-30 335 

21-22 337 

26,33 338 



Numbers, 

PAGE 

3,5-13 404 

5, 11-31 406 

7 408 

10,35 112 

11,24-30 70 

19 404 

20, 1-13 404 

21,1-3 84 

21,4-9 239 

21,14 76 

21,27-30 76 

Deuteronomy. 

6,4 270 

12,8 266 

13 267 

15,12-18 294 

16,1-8. 267 

18, 1-8 323 

18,6 266 

18, 10 267 

20, 16-18 269 

26, 17 268 

28 265 

32 291 

33 209 

33.2 62 

Judges. 
I 86 

5 40 

11,12-28 lOI 

14,6 103 

18 85 

19 45 

1 Samuel. 

2, 12-17 Ill 

5-7 113 

7. 13 Ill 

10,9-13 109 

II 116 

13 and 14 120 

14,36-45 121 

14,47 126 

Sro 



I Samuel — Cont'd. 
page 

15--- 125 

19, 18-24 109 

21,4-6 337 

22,6-19 125 

23 133 

24 131 

26 131 

27 132 

2 Samuel. 

2,8-3,39 141 

2-4 134 

3,6-39 139 

7 145 

7 340 

9 150 

II 148 

15,1-6 148 

16 149 

20,23-26 147 

21,4-6 150 

I Kings. 

1,9 152 

I and 2 153 

4 156 

5,27-30 158 

8,8 164 

9,15-19 158 

9,28 159 

10,28 160 

II, 14-22 - 170 

11, 23-25 171 

12 179 

12, 25-33 181 

14, 23f 182 

14, 25-28 185 

15, 11-13 185 

15, 16-32 186 

15, 27 183 

16, 8-10 183 

18 192 

20, 35-43 193 

21, 19 188 

22, 43 197 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES 



511 



2 Kings. 

PAGE 

3, 26 100 

8, 12 201 

9 198 

1 1 , 4-20 204 

12, 4-16 205 

12, 18 206 

13, 3 206 

14, 1-14 208 

14, 22 232 

14, 25 208 

15, 16 219 

15. 37 233 

16, 3 235 

16, 7 227 

16, 9 228 

16, 18 236 

17, 6 229 

17. 24 230 

17, 24-34 231 

18 244 

18, I 238 

18, 4 14 

18, 7 241 

18, 13 239 

18, 13-16 243 

20, 12-19 242 

21, 2-6 254 

21, 16 257 

22, 3-13 260 

23 262 

23, 29 280 

23, 33 282 

24, I 283 

24, 7 283 

1 Chronicles. 

27 421 

2 Chronicles. 

21, 12-20 421 

33, 11-19 258 

Ezra. 

I. 1-4 344 

2 347 

4, 12 348 

5, 3-6, 14 351 

7> 12-26 391 

9 and 10 394 

Nehemiah. 

I. 9 383 

4. 6 386 

5. 1-13 387 

5» 14-19 387 



Nehemiah — ConVd. 

PAGE 

6, 1-14 388 

7 347 

7, 57-60 170 

13 399 

• Job. 

7, 12-21 367 

9. 2-5 368 

19, 23-27 369 

38 370 

Psalms. 

35. 11-15 472 

42 473 

44 473 

Proverbs. 

8, 22-27 433 

10-22 432 

ECCLESIASTES. 

3. 1-9 - - - 438 

3. 16-21 438 

8, 16-18 437 

Isaiah. 

1, 5 250 

2, 6 233 

2, 2-5 358 

2, 12-17 234 

3. 16-24 255 

6, 9 251 

6, 13 251 

7 and 8 235 

9, 7-9 234 

10, 5-7 249 

10, 28-32 248 

11, 1-8 252 

13 and 14 343 

14, 28-32 241 

18 247 

20 242 

21, i-io 343 

22 249 

24-27 410 

25, 6-8 411 

28, 1-4 234 

28, 17 248 

28, 28f 246 

29 248 

30, 1-5 247 

30- 15 248 

34 and 35 379 

36 244 



Isaiah — Continued. 

PAGE 

39 242 

40-66 371 

41. 1-4 377 

41,6,7 372 

41. 21-23 372 

42, 1-4 377 

45. 14 374 

46, 1-4 372 

49. 1-6 375 

49, 14-50,3 373 

50, 4-6 475 

53 376 

55. 5 375 

56, 6 379 

56, 9 378 

61 379 

63. 1-6 379 

Jeremiah. 

2, i-ii 287 

3, 1-5 287 

4, 5-26 276 

7, 4-15 278 

7. 5-7 288 

7, 17 269 

7, 22 288 

8. 8 273 

11, 15 288 

13, 18-20 291 

17. 19-27 331 

iS 29c 

22, 13-19 282 

22, 24-30 284 

27 293 

29 294 

34. 8-22 295 

35 291 

35. i-ii 191 

36 289 

44 298 

51, 59 294 

52, 28-30 297 

EZEKIEL. 

3. 1-3 304 

3. 15-21 3n 

4. 1-7 304 

5. 1-4 305 

8, 9-12 305 

12, 1-20 305 

II. 1-13 307 

14. 14 364 

14, 20-23 310 

15. 1-5 307 

16 308 



512 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES 

EzEKiEL — Continued. Hosea. Haggai. 

PAGE PAGE P^^GE 

17 308 1.2-9 221 1,1-4 349 

18 310 2,5 222 2,6 354 

19 308 5. 15-6, 4 224 

i9» 3-5 282 13. II 225 Zechariah. 

21.18-23 309 ^4' 2-7 223 i_8 

23 308 I, 7_2, 5 356 

23. 10-12 330 Amos. 3, 6 357 

''i\l\l' ^^^ 1,3 202 5 358 

f^' ' '^ ^^ iand2 216 6. II 357 

34 315 ^2 o^1 8,20-23 'K<i 

34,23 320 3.2 23 3 35 

^r '° l\ 5: 18-20:::;:::: "I 

36,26::::::;::; ^i^ I'^V-- ^'^ ™' . 

^ ^^ 6,1-6 215 1,2 361 

6, 13 208 2, 10-16 361 



37. i-io 318 

38,8 316 



^816 ^T7 7.9 211 3.2-5 361 

39;8-iV::::;:::^^ ^-^ 212 3.8-10 362 

40I48 - 32? 9, 11-15 217 3. 13-15 362 

I4! 6-V5 : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 323 micah. ecclesiasticus. 

45. 13-17 320 2, II 253 4. 11-15 429 

45. 17-20 325 3, 2 253 24, 1-6 429 

46, 13-16 320 3, 5 and 12 253 24.8-23 429 

47. 1-12 326 4, J_4 .\i 38, 24-39, 1 1 - - - - 436 

6 6-8;;;;:;:::: 257 50,18-21 431 



Daniel. 
7. 7 414 



I Maccabees. 



7,9-14 454 ^^"™- 1.^1-^4 444 

8, 5-8 414 I, 2 and 3 278 2, 42 448 

8,14 454 2 and 3 277 5,1-5 460 

10 452 5. 55-68 461 

;;■-- 452 zephaniah. ^'f;3 461 

ii» 31 446 9. 5-19 465 

12,7 454 3.1-7 276 14,27-49 470 



€U 3nternationdf C^eofogtcaf feifirarg. 

AN INTRODUCTION TO 

The Literature of tlie Old Testament 

By Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt. 

Canon of Christ Church, Oxford 

Ne-w Edition Revised 



Crown 8vo, 558 pages, $2.50 net 



"It is the most scholarly and critical work in the English lan- 
guage on the literature of the Old Testament, and fully up to the 
present state of research in Germany." — Prof. Philip Schaff, D.D, 

" Canon Driver has arranged his material excellently, is succinct 
without being hurried or unclear, and treats the various critical prob- 
lems involved with admirable fairness and good judgment." 

—Prof. C. H. Toy. 

"His judgment is singularly fair, calm, unbiassed, and inde- 
pendent. It is also thoroughly reverential. . . . The service, 
which his book will render in the present confusion of mind on this 
great subject, can scarcely be overestimated." — The London Times, 

"As a whole, there is probably no book in the English language 
equal to this ' Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament' 
for the student who desires to understand what the modern criticism 
thinks about the Bible." — Dr. Lyman Abbott, in the Outlook. 

" The book is one worthy of its subject, thorough in its treat- 
ment, reverent in its tone, sympathetic in its estimate, frank in its 
recognition of difficulties, conservative (in the best sense of the 
word) in its statement of results." 

— Prof. Henry P. Smith, in the Magazine of Christian Literature. 

' ' In working out his method our author takes up each book in 
order and goes through it with marvelous and microscopic care. 
Every verse, every clause, word by word, is sifted and weighed, and 
its place in the literary organism decided upon," 

— The Presbyterian Quarterly. 

" It contains just that presentation of the results of Old Testa- 
ment criticism for which English readers in this department have 
been waiting. . . . The whole book is excellent; it will be found 
helpful, characterized as it is all through by that scholarly poise of 
mind, which, when it does not know, is not ashamed to present de- 
grees of probability." — New World. 

"... Canon Driver's book is characterized throughout by 
thorough Christian scholarship, faithful research, caution in the 
expression of mere opinions, candor in the statement of facts and of 
the necessary inferences from them, and the devout recognition of 
the divine inworking in the religious life of the Hebrews, and of the 
tokens of divine inspiration in the literature which records and em- 
bodies it." — Dr. A. P. Peabody, in the Catnbridge Tribune. 



t^t 3nfernaftonaf C^eofogtcaf fetgrctrg. 

— — , 

A HISTORY OF 

CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 

ARTHUR CUSHMAN McQIFFERT, Ph.D., D.D. 

fVaskbum Professor of Church History m the Union Theological Seminary, New Vorki 



Crown 8vo, 68! Pages, $2.50 Net. 



** The author's work is ably done. . . . This volume is worthy of 
its place in the series." — The Congregaiionalist. 

" Invaluable as a resume of the latest critical work upon the great forma- 
tive period of the Christian Church." — The Christian World (London). 

"There can be no doubt that this is a remarkable work, both on account 
of the thoroughness of its c/i'^cism and the boldness of its views." 

— The Scotsman. 

"The ability and learning of ProTsssor McGifTert's work on the Apos- 
tolic Age, and, whatever dissent there may be from its critical opinion, its 
manifest sincerity, candid scholars will not fail to appreciate." 

— Dr. George P. Fisher, of Yale University. 

" Pre-eminently a clergyman's book; but there are many reasons why it 
should be in the library of every thoughtful Christian person. The style 
is vivid and at times picturesque. The results rather than the processes of 
learning are exhibited. It is full of local color, of striking narrative, and of 
keen, often brilliant, character analysis. It is an admirable book for the 
Sunday-school teacher." — Boston Advertiser. 

*' For a work of such wide learning and critical accuracy, and which deals 
with so many difhcult and abstruse problems of Christian history, this is re- 
markably readable." — The Independent. 

"It is certain that Professor McGififert's work has set the mark for 
t'uture eflfort in the obscure fields of research into Christian origin." 

— N'ezu York Tribune. 

" Dr. McGifTert has produced an able, scholarly, suggestive, and con- 
structive work. He is in thorough and easy possession of his sources and 
materials, so that his positive construction is seldom interrupted by citations, 
the demolition of opposing views, or the irrelevant discussion of subordinate 
questions." — The Methodist Review. 

"The clearness, self-consistency, and force of the whole impression of 
Apostolic Christianity with which we leave this book, goes far to guarantee 
its permanent value and success." — The Expositor, 



CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. 



By ALEXANDER V. G. ALLEN. D.D. 

£*rofe3sor of Eccle.iastical History in the Episcopal Theological School 
in Cambridge. 



Crown 8vo, 577 pages, $2.50 net. 



" Professor Allen's Christian Institutions may be regarded as tht most 
important permanent contribution which the Protestant Episcopal Ch'irch 
of the United States has yet made to general theological thought. In a few 
particulars it will not command the universal, or even the generaJ assent of 
discriminating readers ; but it will receive, as it deserves, the respect and 
appreciation of those who rightly estimate the varied, learned, and independ- 
ent spirit of the author." — 7 Ae Ame?'icaji Journal of Theology. 

" As to his method there can be no two opinions, nor as to the broad, 
critical, and appreciative character of his study. It is an immensely sug- 
gestive, stimulating, and encouraging piece of work. It shows that m.odern 
scholarship is not all at sea as to results, and it presents a worthy view of a 
great and noble subject, the greatest and noblest of all subjects." — T/ie In- 
dependent. 

"This will at once take its place among the most valuable volumes in the 
• International Theological Library,' constituting in itself a very complete 
epitome both of general church history and of the history of doctrines. 
. . . A single quotation well illustrates the brilliant style and the pro- 
found thought of the book." — The Bibliotheca Sacra. 

"The wealth of learning, the historical spirit, the philosophic grasp, the 
loyalty to the continuity of life, which everywhere characterize this thorough 
study of the organization, creeds, and cultus constituting Christian Institu- 
tion. . . . However the reader may differ with the conclusions of the 
author, few will question his painstaking scholarship, judicial temperament, 
and catholicity of Christian spirit." — The Advance. 

"It is an honor to American scholarship, and will be read by all who 
wish to be abreast of the age." — The Lutheran Church Review. 

" With all its defects and limitations, this is a most illuminating and sug- 
gestive buck on a subject of abiding interest." — The Christian Intelli- 
ge::ccr.'' 

"It is a treasury of expert knowledge, arranged in. an orderly and lucid 
manner, and more than ordinarily readable. . . . It is controlled by the 
candid and critical spirit of the careful historian who, of course, has his 
convictions and preferences, but who makes no claims in their behalf which 
the facts do not seem to warrant." — The Congregatiov.alist. 

" He writes in a charming style, and has collected a vast amount of im- 
portant material pertaining to his subject which can be found in 110 other 
work in so compact a form." — 1 nc Ae^o York Observer 



History of Christian Doctrine. 

BY 

GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D., 

Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Yale University* 
Crown 8vo, 583 pages, $2.50 neto 



'* He gives ample proof of rare scholarship. Many of the old doc- 
trines are restated with a freshness, lucidity and elegance of style 
which make it a very readable book." — TAe New York Observer. 

*' Intrinsically this volume is worthy of a foremost place m our 
modern literature . . . "We have no work on the subject in English 
eaual to it, for variety and range, clearness of statement, judicious 
guidance, and catholicity of tone"— London Nonconformist and Inde- 
pendent. 

" It is only just to say that Dr. Fisher has produced the best His- 
tor} of Doctrine that we have in English." — The New York Evangelist. 

•'It is to me quite a marvel how a book of this kind (Fisher's 
•History of Christian Doctrine') can be written so accurately to 
scale. It could only be done by one who had a very complete com- 
mand of all the periods." — Prof. William Sanday, Oxford. 

"It presents so many new and fresh points and is so thoroughly 
treated, and brings into view contemporaneous thought, especially 
the American, that it is a pleasure to read it, and will be an equal 
pleasure to go back to it again and again." — Bishop John F. Hurst. 

" Throughout there is manifest wide reading, careful prepara- 
tion, spirit and good judgment," — Philadelphia Presbyterian. 

•♦ The language and style are alike delightfully fresh and easy 
. . . A book which will be found both stimulating and instructive 
to the student of theology." — The Churchman. 

' ' Professor Fisher has trained the public to expect the excellen 
cies of scholarship, candor, judicial equipoise and admirable lucidity 
and elegance of stjde in whatever comes from his pen. But in the 
present work he has surpassed himself." — Prof. J. H. Thayer, o/ 
Harvard Divinity School. 

" It meets the severest standard; there is fullness of knowledge, 
thorough research, keenly analytic thought, and rarest enrichment 
for a positive, profound and learned critic. There is interpretative 
and revealing sympathy. It is of the class of works that mark epochs 
in their several departments." — The Outlook. 

" As a first study of the History of Doctrine, Professor Fisher's 
volume has the merit of being full, accurate and interesting." 

— Prof. Marcus Dods 

" . . . He gathers up, reorganizes and presents the results of 
tovestigaticn in a style rarely full of literary charm." 

— The Interior. 



€^c 3nternafionaf ^^^eofogtcaf £i6rarg. 

Apologetics ; 

Or, Christianity Defensively Stated. 

By the late ALEXANDER BALAIALN BRUCE, D.D„ 

Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, 

Glasgow ; Author of " The Training of the Twelve," "The Huniilia= 

tion of Christ," " The Kingdom of God," etc. 



Crown 8vo, 528 pages, $2.50 net. 



Professor Bnice's work is not an abstract treatise on apologetics, 
but an apologetic presentation of the Christian faith, with reference 
to whatever in our intellectual environment makes faith difficult at 
the present time. 

It addresses itself to men whose sympathies are with Christianity, 
and discusses the topics of pressing concern — the burning questions 
of the hour. It is offered as an aid to faith rather than a buttress of 
received belief and an armory of weapons for the orthodox believer. 

" The book throughout exhibits the methods and the results of 
conscientious, independent, expert and devout Biblical scholarship, 
and it is of permanent value." — T/ie Congregationalist. 

*'The practical value of this book entitles it to a place in the 
first rank." — The Independent. 

" A patient and scholarly presentation of Christianit}^ under 
aspects best fitted to commend it to ' ingenuous and truth-loving 
minds.' " — The A^ation, 

"The book is well-nigh indispensable to those who propose to 
keep abreast of the times." — Western Christian Advocate, 

"Professor Bruce does not consciously evade any difficulty, 
and he constantly aims to be completely fair-minded. For this 
reason he wins from the start the strong confidence of the reader." — 
Advance. 

" Its admirable spirit, no- less than the strength of its arguments, 
will go far to remove many of the prejudices or doubts of those who 
are outside of Christianity, but who are, nevertheless, not infidels." — 
New York Tribune. 

" In a word, he tells precisely what all intelligent persons wish to 
know, and tells it in a clear, fresh and convincing manner. Scarcely 
anyone has so successfully rendered the service of showing what 
the result of the higher criticism is for the proper understanding of 
the history and religion of \'Ar2i€\.." — Andover Review. 

•' We have not for a long time taken a book in hand that is mor*^ 
stimulating to faith. . . . Without commenting further, we repeat 
that: this volume is the ablest, most scholarly, most advanced, and 
sharpest defence of Chiistianity that has ever been written. Kc 
theoV)n:ical libi'a- v should be without it." — Zion s Herald. 



Christian Ethics, 

By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D., New Haven. 



Crown 8vo, 508 pages, $2.50 net. 



"As this book is the latest, so it is the fullest and most atcractive 
treatment of the subject that we are familiar with. Patient and ex- 
haustive in its method of inquiry, and stimulating and suggestive in 
the topic it handles, we are confident that it will be a help to the 
task of the moral understanding and interpretation of human life." 

— T/te Living Church. 

•* This book of Dr. Newman Smyth is of extraordinary interest and 
value. It is an honor to American scholarship and American Chris- 
tian thinking. It is a work which has been wrought out with re- 
markable grasp of conception, and power of just analysis, fullness ot 
information, richness of thought, and affluence of apt and luminous 
illustration. Its style is singularly clear, simple, facile, and strong. 
Too much gratification can hardly be expressed atthe way the author 
lifts the whole subject of ethics up out of the slough of mere natural- 
ism into its own place, where it is seen to be illumined by the Chris- 
tian revelation and vision." — The Advance. 

" The subjects treated cover the whole field of moral and spiritual re^ 
lations, theoretical and practical, natural and revealed, individual and social, 
civil and ecclesiastical. To enthrone the personal Christ as the true content 
of the ethical ideal, to show how this ideal is realized in Christian conscious- 
ness and how applied in the varied departments of practical life — these are 
the main objects of the book and no objects could be loftier." 

— The Congregaiionalist. 

" The author has written with competent knowledge, with great spiritual 
insight, and in a tone of devoutness and reverence worthy of his theme." 

— The London Lndependent. 

"It is methodical, comprehensive, and readable; few subdivisions, 
direct or indi'-ect, are omitted in the treatment of the broad theme, and 
though it aims to be an exhaustive treatise, and not a popular haudbook, it 
may be perused at random with a good deal of suggestiveness and profit." 

— The Sunday School Times 

** It reflects great credit on the author, presenting an exemplr.vy temper 
and manner throughout, being a model of clearness in thought and term, 
and containing passages of exquisite finish." — Hartford Seminary KecorC* 

" We commend this book to all reading, intelligent men, an "* especi U« 
to ministers, who will find in it many fresh suggestions." 

— Professor A. E Bp.ucf 



THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH 

From the Accession of Trajan to the Fourth 
General Council (A.D. 98=451) 

By ROBERT RAINY, D.D. 

Principal of the New College, Edinburgh. 



Crown 8vo. 554 Pages. Net, $2.50. 



''This is verily and indeed a book to thank God for; and if anybody has 
been despairing of a restoration of true catholic unity in God's good time, it 
is a '"^ook to fill him with hope and confidence." — The Church Standard. 

* Principal Rainy has written a fascinating book. He has the gifts of an 
historian and an expositor. His fresh presentation of so intricate and time- 
worn a subject as Gnosticism grips and holds the attention from first to last. 
Familiarity with most of the subjects which fall to be treated within these 
limits of Christian, history had bred a fancy that v/e might safely and profit- 
ably skip some of the chapters, but we found ourselves returning to close up 
the gaps ; we should advise those who are led to read the book through this 
notice not to repeat our experiment. It is a dish of well-cooked and well- 
seasoned meat, savory and rich, with abundance of gravy ; and, while no 
one wishes to be a glutton, he will miss something nutritious if he does not 
take time to consume it all." — Methodist Beview. 

"It covers the period from 98-451 A.D., with a well-marked order, and 
is written in a downright style, simple and unpretentious. Simplicity, in- 
deed, and perspicuity are the keynotes, and too great burden of detail is 
avoided. A very fresh and able book." — The Nation. 

" The International Theological Library is certainly a very valuabk collec- 
tion of books on the science of Theology. And among the set "^^ good books, 
Dr. Rainy 's volume on The Ancient Catholic Church ,6 entitled to a high 
place. We know of no one volume which contains jO much matter which 
is necessary to a student of theology." — The Living Church. 

" Of course, a history so condensed is not to be read satisfactorily in a day 
or even a week. The reader often will find ample food for thought for a 
day or more in what he may have read in two hours. But the man who 
will master the whole book will be amply rewarded, and will be convinced 
that he has been consorting with a company of the world's greatest men, 
and has attained an accurate knowledge of one of the world's greatest and 
most important periods." — Christian Intelligencer. 

"As a compend of church history for the first five centuries, this volume 
will be found most useful, for ready reference, both to those who possess 
the more elaborate church histories, and for the general information desired 
by a wider reading public ; while the temperate presentations of the author's 
own theories upon disputed points are in themselves of great value." — 
Bibliotheca Sacra. 

" Principal Rainy of the New College, Edinburgh, is one of the foremost 
scholars of Great Britain, and in Scotland, his home, he is regarded by his 
countrymen as the chief figure in their ecclesiastical life. There can be 
little doubt that this recent volume will enhance his reputation and serve to 
introduce him to a wider circle of friends" — Congregationalist, Boston, 



C^e 3nfematlondf ^^ofogtcaf feigwrj. 



THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE 
WORKING CHURCH 

by WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., LL.D. 

Author of "Applied Christianity," "Who Wrote the Bible?" "Ruling 
Ideas of the Preseiiv Age," etc. 



Crown 8vo, 485 pages, $2.5o net. 



** Dr. Gladden may be regarded as an expert and an authority on practi- 
cal theology. . . . Upon the whole we judge that it will be of great 
service to the ministry of all the Protestant churches." — The Interior. 

" Packed with wisdom and instruction and a profound piety. . 
It is pithy, pertinent, and judicious from cover to cover, . . . An ex- 
ceedingly comprehensive, sagacious, and suggestive study and application 
of its theme." — The Congregationalist. 

" We have here, for the pastor, the most modern practical treatise yet 
published — sagacious, balanced, devout, inspiring." — The Dial. 

" His long experience, his eminent success, his rare literary ability, and 
liis diligence as a student combine to make of this a model book for its pur- 
pose. . . . We know not where the subjects are more wisely discussed 
than here." — The Bibliotheca Sacra. 

* ' This book should be the vade mecimi of every working pastor. It 
abounds in wise counsels and suggestions, the result of large experience 
and observation. No sphere of church life or church work is left untreated." 
— The (Canadian) Alethcdist Alagazijie and Review. 

** A happier combination of author and subject, it will be acknowledged, 
can hardly be found. . . . It is comprehensive, practical, deeply 
spiritual, and fertile in wise and suggestive thought upon ways and means 
of bringing the Gospel to bear on the lives of men."— 77;^ Christian Ad- 
vocate. 

"Dr. Gladden writes with pith and point, but with wise moderation, a 
genial tone and great good sense. . . . The book is written in an exceh 
lent, business-like and vital English style, which carries the author's point 
and purpose and has an attractive vitality of its own." — The Independent. 

" A comprehensive, inspiring, and helpful guide to a busy pastor. On^ 
^nds in it a multitude of practical suggestions for the development of th& 
spiritual and working life of the Church, and the answer to many problems' 
that are a constant perplexity to the faithful minister." 

Xhe Chri.<!t.iav Tnteilig-encer 



THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

By GEORGE B. STEVENS, D.D. 

Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, 



Crown 8vo, 480 pages, $2.50 net 



•*In style it is rarely clear, simple, and strong, adaptea alike to the gen* 
eral reader and the theological student. The former class will find it read- 
able and interesting to an unusual degree, while the student will value its 
thorough scholarship and completeness of treatment. His work has a sim- 
plicity, beauty, and freshness that add greatly to its scholarly excellence and 
worth . " — Ck ristia n A dvoca te. 

" Professor Stevens is a profound student and interpreter of the Bible, as 
far as possible divested of any prepossessions concerning its message. In 
his study of it his object has been not to find texts that might seem to bol- 
ster up some system of theological speculation, but to find out what the 
writers of the various books meant to say and teach. " — A^. V. Tribune* 

"It is a fine example of painstaking, discriminating, impartial research 
and statement.'' — The Congregationalist. 

" Professor Stevens has given us a very good book. A liberal conser- 
vative, he takes cautious and moderate positions in the field of New Testa- 
ment criticism, yet is admirably fair-minded. His method is patient and 
thorough. He states the opinions of those who differ from him with care 
and clearness. The proportion of quotation and reference is well adjusted 
and the reader is kept well informed concerning the course of opinion with- 
out being drawn away from the text of the author's own thought. His 
judgments on difficult questions are always put with self-restraint and 
sobriety." — The Chicrchman. 

*' It will certainly take its place, after careful reading, as a valuable 
synopsis, neither bare nor over-elaborate, to which recourse will be nad by 
the student or teacher who requires within moderate compass the gist of 
modern research." — The Litej'ary World. 



Cljt Intfrnattonal Critiral Cgmmtntarg 

on tl]c Qoin Scnptuvcs of tl]e (iPlb gntr 
Jfeoj Testaments. 



EDITORS' PREFACE. 



There are now before the public many Commentaries, 
written by British and American divines, of a popular or 
homiletical character. T/i£ Cambridge Bible for Schools^ 
the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The 
Speaker s Conimentary^ The Popular Coiti7nentary (Schaff), 
The Expositor's Bible, and other similar series, have their 
special place and importance. But they do not enter into 
the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such 
series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches 
Hatidbuch zum A. T.j De Wette's Kurzgefasstes exegetisches 
Hajidbuch zum JV. T; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- 
meJitar; Keil and Delitzsch's Biblischer Commentar iiher das 
A. T; Lange's Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack's 
Handko7nmenfar zum A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handko7nmentar 
zum JV. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, 
and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English- 
speaking public ; others are in process of translation. But 
no corresponding series by British or American divines 
has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared 
by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, 
Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others ; and the time has 
come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, 
when it is practicable to combine British and American 
scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive 



EDITORS PREFACE 

Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholar* 
ship, and in a measure lead its van. 

Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of New York, and Messrs. 
T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a 
series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, 
under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., in America, 
and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and 
the Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., for the New Testament, 
in Great Britain. 

The Commentaries will be international and inter-con- 
fessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical 
bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of 
the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of 
interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and 
clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each 
book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results 
of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions 
still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear 
in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each 
section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, 
or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and 
philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from 
matter of a more general character ; and in the Old Testa- 
ment the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as 
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted 
with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books 
will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, 
with critical notices of the most important literature of 
the subject. Historical and Arch3eological questions, as 
well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the 
plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical 
Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series. 



THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY. 



The following eminent Scholars are engaged upon the Volumes 
named below : — 

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

The Rev. T. K, Cheyne, D.D., Oriel Professor of the 
Interpretation of Holy Scripture, University of Ox- 
ford. 

The Rev. A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. 

J. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, 
Oxford. 

G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Mansfield College, Oxford. \_N'ow Ready. 

The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. \^A^ow Ready. 

The Rev. George Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D., Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow. 

The Rev. George Moore, D.D., Professor of The- 
ology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 

\_N'ow Ready. 

The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Professor of Biblical 
History, Amherst College, Mass. \_A^ow Ready. 

The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union 
Theological Seminary, New V'ork City. 

The Rev. Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of He- 
brew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 

The Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., sometime Professor 
of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, 
now Rector of St. Mark's Church, New York City. 

The Rev. L. B. Baton, Ph.D., Professor of He- 
brew, Hartford Theological Seminary, Hartford, 
Conn. 

The Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Edward 
Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, Union 
Theological Seminary, New York. 

The Rev. C. FL Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of He- 
brew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachu- 
setts. [_A^o-w Ready. 

The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. 

The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D Litt., Regius Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. 

The late Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., some 
time Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, 
Edinburgh. 

The Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Regius Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England. 

The Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D , sometime 
Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Phila- 
delphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New 
York City. 

W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the Uni- 
versity of Chicago, Illinois [In the Press. 

\\. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the Uni 
versity of Chicago, Illinois. 



Genesis. 

Exodus. 
Leviticus. 

Numbers. 
Deuteronomy. 
Joshua. 
Judges. 

Samuel. 
Kings. 

Chronicles. 

Ezra and 

Nehemiah. 

Esther. 

Psalms. 

Proverbs. 

Job. 

Isaiah, Ch. 1-39. 

Isaiah, Ch. 

40-66. 

Jeremiah. 

Daniel. 



Amos and 

Hosea. 
Micah to 

Malachi. 



THE INTERHATIOML CRITICAL COMMENTARY.— Continued. 



St. Matthew. 
St, Mark. 

St. Luk3. 

Harmony of 
the Gospels. 

Acts. 

Romans, 

Corinthians. 

Galatians. 

Ephesians 
and Colossians. 

Philippians 
and Philemon. 

Thessalonians, 

The Pastoral 

Epistles. 

Hebrews. 

St. James. 

Peter and Jude. 



The Epistles 
of John. 

Revelation. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The Rev. Willoughby C. Allen, M.A., Fellow of 
Exeter College, Oxford. 

The late Rev. E. P. Gould, D.D., sometime Professor 
of New Testament Literature, P. E. Divinity School, 
Philadelphia. [A'^-'tc Ready. 

The Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., sometime Master 
of University College, Durham. \^No7o Ready, 

The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Mai- 
garet Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rov. 
"•.ViLLouGHKV C. Alle,\, 'M.A., Fellow cf ExetSI 
College, Oxford. 

The Rev. Frederick H. Chase, D.D., Fellow g1 
Christ's College and Vice Chancellor, Cambridge, 
Eng. 

The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D , Lady Mar. 
garet Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ 
Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. Headlam, M.A., 
Fellow of All Souls' College. Oxford. [A^ozo Ready, 

The Right Rev. Arch. Robertson D.D., LL.D.^ 
Lord Bishop of Exeter. 

The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D , Professor oi 
New Testament Literature, University ot Chicago. 

The Rev T. K. Abbott, B.D., D.Litt , sometime Pro- 
fessor of Biblical Greek, Trinity Collet* e. Dublin, 
now Librarian of the same. [N.7a Ready, 

The Rev. Marvin R. Vincent, D.D., Professor oi 
Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York City. [Now Ready. 

The Rev. James Everett Frame, M.A., Asst. Pro- 
fessor in the New Testament Department, Union 
Theological Seminary, New York. 

The Rev. Walter Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble 
College, and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 

The Rev. A. Nairne, M.A., Professor of Hebrew m 
King's College, London. 

The Rev James H. Ropes, B.D., Bussey P'-ofessor 
of New Testament Criticism in Harvard University. 

The Rev. Charles Bigg. D.D., Regius Professor of 
Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, 
Oxford. YA'ozu Ready. 

The Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., Principal and 
Professor of Systematic Theology, Free Churcli Col- 
lege, Aberdeen. 

The Rev. Robert H. Charles, D.D., Professor o^ 
Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. 



Other engagements ivill be announced shortly. 



'ght fxiUxn^tion^l ©rttijcal ®0mmjentarg. 



" A decided advance on all other commentaries y — The Outlook. 



DEUTERONOMY. 

By th2 Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt.^ 

Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 



Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 



"No one could be better qualified than Professor Driver to write a critical 
and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy. His previous works are author- 
ities in all the departments involved; the grammar and lexicon of the Hebrew 
language, the lower and higher criticism, as well as exegesis and Biblical the- 
ology; . . . the interpretation in this commentary is careful and sober in the 
main. A wealth of historical, geographical, and philological information illus- 
trates and elucidates both the narrative and the discourses. Valuable, though 
concise, excursuses are often given." — The Congregationalism. 

" It is a pleasure to see at last a really critical Old Testament commentary 
in English upon a portion of the Pentateuch, and especially one of such merit. 
This I find superior to any other Commentary in any language upon Deuter- 
onomy," — Professor E. L. Curtis, of Yale University. 

" This volume of Professor Driver's is marked by his well-known care and 
accuracy, and it will be a great boon to every one who wishes to acquire a 
thorough knowledge, either of the Hebrew language, or of the contents of the 
Book of Deuteronomy, and their significance for the development of Old Tes- 
tament thought. The author finds scope for displaying his well-known wide 
and accurate knowledge, and delicate appreciation of the genius of the 
Hebrew language, and his readers are supplied with many carefully con- 
structed lists of words and expressions. He is at his best in the detailed 
examination of the text." — London AthencBUtn. 

" It must be said that this work is bound to take rank among the best com- 
mentaries in any language on the important book with which it deals. On 
every page there is abundant evidence of a scholarly knowledge of the litera- 
ture, and of the most painstaking care to make the book useful to thorough 
students." — The I.tithcran Chunhinan. 

•'The deep and difficult questions raised by Deuteronomy are, in every in- 
stance, considered with care, insight, and critical acumen. The student wha 
wishes for solid information, or a knowledge of method and temper of the 
tiew criticism, will find advantaije in consultinc: the pages ct Dr. Driver." •-■— 
'CiotCs Herald, 



'* IVe believe this series to be of epoch-making importance:' 

— The N. Y. Evangelist. 

JUDGES. 

By Dr. GEORGE FOOT MOORE, D.D., 

, Professor of Theology, Harvard University. 



Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 



"The typographical execution of this handsome volume is worthy of the 
scholarly character of the contents, and higher praise could not be given it." 
— Professor C. H. Toy, of Harvard University. 

*' This work represents the latest results of ' Scientific Biblical Scholarship,' 
and as such has the greatest value for the purely critical student, especially on 
the side of textual and literary criticism." — The Church Standard. 

" Professor Moore has more than sustained his scholarly reputation in this 
work, which gives us for the first time in English a commentary on Judges not 
excelled, if indeed equalled, in any language of the world." — Professor 
L. W. Batten, of P. E. Divinity School^ Philadelphia. 

" Although a critical commentary, this work has i.s practical uses, and by 
its divisions, headlines, etc., it is admirably adapted to the wants of all 
thoughtful students of the Scriptures. Indeed, with the other books of the 
series, it is sure to find its way into the hands of pastors and scholarly lay- 
men." — Portland Zion's Herald. 

" Like its predecessors, this volume will be warmly welcomed — whilst to 
those whose means of securing up-to-date information on the subject of which 
it treats are limited, it is simply invaluable." — Edinburgh Scotsman. 

" The work is done in an atmosphere of scholarly interest and indifference 
to dogmatism and controversy, which is at least refreshing. ... It is a noble 
introduction to the moral forces, ideas, and influences that controlled the 
period of the Judges, and a model of what a historical commentary, with a 
practical end in view should be," — The Independent. 

" The work is marked by a clear and forcible style, by scholarly research, by 
critical acumfen, by extensive reading, and by evident familiarity with the 
Hebrew. Many of the comments and suggestions are valuable, while the 
index at the close is serviceable and satisfactory." — Philadelphia Presbyterian. 

" This volume sustains the reputation of the series for accurate and wide 
scholarship given in clear and strong English, ... the scholarly reader will 
find delight in the perusal of this ac!mirable commentary." — Zion's Herald. 



tk JntemaiioMf Cxiticat Comtnenfarj. 

** Richly helpful to scholars and ministers" — The Presbyterian Banner. 

The Books of Samuel 

BY 

REV. HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D., 

Pro/essor of Biblical History and hUerpretation in A tnherst Collejie. 



Crown 8vo, Net $3.00. 



*' Professor Smith's Commentary will for some time be the standard 
work on Samuel, and we heartily congratulate him on scholarly work s^ 
faithfully accomplished." — The Athenaum. 

"It is both critical and exegetical, and deals with original Hebrew and 
Greek. It shows painstaking diligence and considerable research." — The 
Presbyterian. 

" The style is clear and forcible and sustains the well-won reputation of 
the distinguished author for scholarship and candor. All thoughtful stu- 
dents of the Scriptures will find the work helpful, not only on account of its 
specific treatment of the Books of Samuel, on which it is based, but because 
of the light it throws on and the aid it gives in the general interpretation of 
the Scriptures as modified by present-day criticism." — The Philadelphia 
Press. 

" The literary quality of the book deserves mention. We do not usually 
go to commentaries for models of English style. But this book has a dis- 
tinct, though unobtrusive, literary flavor. It is delightful reading. The 
translation is always felicitous, and often renders further comment need- 
less." — The Evangelist. 

"The treatment is critical, and at the same time expository. Conserva- 
tive students may find much in this volume with which they cannot agree, 
but no one wishing to know the most recent conclusions concerning this 
part of sacred history can afford to be without it. " — Philadelphia Presby- 
terian Journal. 

"The author exhibits precisely that scholarly attitude which will com- 
mend his work to the widest audience." — The Churchman. 

"The commentary is the most complete and minute hitherto published 
by an English-speaking scholar." — Literature. 

"The volumes of Driver and Moore set a high standard for the Old 
Testament writers ; but I think Professor Smith's work has reached the 
same high level. It is scholarly and critical, and yet it is written in a spirit 
of reverent devotion, a worthy treatment of the sacred text." — Prof. L. W. 
Batten, of P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 



Z^c 3ttterndttoMf Criticaf Commentarg. 



** A decided advance Ofi all other commentaries" — The OUTLOOK. 



PROVERBS 



By the Rev. CRAWFORD H. TOY, D.D.. LL.D. 

Professor of Hebrew in Harvard University. 



Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 



**In careful scholarship this volume leaves nothing to be desired. Its in- 
terpretation is free from theological prejudice. It will be indispensable to 
the careful student, whether lay or clerical." — The Outlook. 

"Professor Toy's 'Commentary' will for many years to come remain a 
handbook foi both teachers and learners, and its details will be studied with 
critical cars and general appreciation." — The AthoKvwn. 

"The commentary itself is a most thorough treatment of each verse in 
detail, in which the light of the fullest scholarship is thrown upon the mean- 
ing. The learning displayed throughout the work is enormous. Here is a 
commentary at last that does not skip the hard places, but grapples with 
every problem and point, and says the best that can be said." — Presbyterian 
Ba7iner. 

" Professor Toy's commentary on Proverbs maintains the highest standard 
of the International Critical Commentaries. We can give no higher praise. 
Proverbs presents comparatively few problems in criticism, but offers large 
opportunities to the expositor and exegete. Professor Toy's work is 
thorough and complete." — The Congregationalist. 

"This addition to 'The International Critical Commentary' has the same 
characteristics of thoroughness and painstaking scholarship as the preceding 
issues of the series. In the critical treatment of the text, in noting the 
various readings and the force of the words in the original Hebrew, it leaves^ 
nothing to be desired." — The Christian Intelligeiicer. 

"A first-class, up-to-date, critical and exegetical commentary on the Book 
of Proverbs in the English language was one of the crying needs of Biblical 
scholarship. Accordingly, we may not be yielding to the latest addition to 
the International Critical Series the tribute it deserves, when we say that it 
at once takes the first place in its class. That place it undoubtedly deserves, 
however, and would have secured even against much more formidable com- 
petitors than it happens to have. It is altogether a Avell-arranged, lucid 
exposition of this unique book in the Bible, based on a careful study of the 
text and the linguistic and historical background of every part of it." — TJ>c 
Interior. 

"While this commentary is called 'critical' and is such, it is not one in 
which the apparatus is spread out in detail ; it is one which any intelli- 
gent English reader can readily use and thoroughly understand " — The 
Evaup-elist. 



'ght %nUx\xntxonnl C^rfttcal ®ommeutavg« 

" IVe deem it as needful for the studious pastor to possess himself 
iff these volumes as to obtain the best dictionary and encyclopedia^ 

— The Congregationalist. 



ST. MARK. 



i5y the Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D., 

LaU P*-cfessor of Neiv Testament Exegesis, P. E. Divinity Sckoolf Philadelphia, 



Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50. 



•• iu point of scholarship, of accuracy, of originality, this last addition to tiic 
series is worthy of its predecessors, while for terseness and keenness of exegesis, 
we should put it first of them all." — IThe Congregationalist. 

" The whole make-up is that of a thoroughly helpful, instructive critical 
atudy of the Word, surpassing anything of the kind ever attempted in the 
English language, and to students and clergymen knowing the proper use of 
a commentary it will prove an invaluable aid." — The Lutheran Quarterly. 

" Professor Gould has done his work well and thoroughly. . . . The com- 
mentary is an admirable example of the critical method at its best. . . . The 
Word study . . . shows not only familiarity with all the literature of the sub- 
ject, but patient, faithful, and independent investigation. ... It will rank 
among the best, as it is the latest commentary on this basal Gospel." — The 
Christian Intelligencer. 

" It will give the student the vigorously expressed thought of a very thought- 
ful scholar." — The Church Standard. 

" Dr. Gould's commentary on Mark is a large success, . . . and a credit to 
American scholarship. . . . He has undoubtedly given us a commentary on 
Mark which surpasses all others, a thing we have reason to expect will be true 
in the case of every volume of the series to which it belongs." — The Biblical 
World. 

"The volume is characterized by extensive learning, patient attention to 
details and a fair degree of caution." — Bibliotheca Sacra. 

" The exegetical portion of the book is simple in arrangement, admirable 
in form and condensed in statement. . . . Dr. Gould does not slavishly follow 
any authority, but expresses his own opinions in language both concise and 
clear." — The Chicago Standard. 

" In clear, forcible and elegant language the author furnishes the results of 
the best investigations on the second Gospel, both early and late. He treats 
these various subjects with the hand of a master." — Boston Zion's Herald. 

"The author gives abundant evidence of thorough acquaintance with the 
facts and history in the case. . . . His treatment of them is always fresh and 
5cb«>^arly, and oftentimes helpful." '— 2)4^ New York Observer. 



$lhit %nUvnntxonnX (gvitttat @0mmjentarg> 

" // ts hardly necessary to say that this series will stand first 
among all English serial commentaries on the Bible^ 

— The Biblical World. 



ST. LUKE. 

By the Rev. ALFRED PLUflflER, D.D., 

Master of University College, Durham, Formerly Fellow and Senior Tutor of 
Trinity College, Oxford. 



Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 



In the author's Critical Introduction to the Commentary is contained a full 
rreatment of a large number of important topics connected with the study of 
jhe Gospel, among which are the following : The Author of the Book — The 
Sources of the Gospel — Object and Plan of the Gospel — Characteristics, 
Style and Language — The Integrity of the Gospel — The Text — Literary 
History. 

FROM THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 

If this Commentary has any special features, they will perhaps be found in 
the illustrations from Jewish writings, in the abundance of references to the 
Septuagint, and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in the 
frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin versions, and in the attention 
which has been paid, both in the Introduction and throughout the Notes, to 
the marks of St. Luke's style. 

" It is distinguished throughout by learning, sobriety of judgment, and 
sound exegesis. It is a weighty contribution to the interpretation of the 
Third Gospel, and will take an honorable place in the series of which it forms 
a part." — Prof. D. D. Salmond, in the Critical Review. 

*' We are pleased with the thoroughness and scientific accuracy of the inter- 
pretations. ... It seems to us that the prevailing characteristic of the book 
is common sense, fortified by learning and piety." — T/ie Herald and Presbyter. 

"An important work, which no student of the Word of God can safely 
jieglect." — The Church Standard. 

"The author has both the scholar's knowledge and the scholar's spirit 
Accessary for the preparation of such a commentary. . . . We know of 
lothing on the Third Gospel which more thoroughly meets the wants of the 
Biblical scholar." — The Outlook. 

" The author is not only a profound scholar, but a chastened and reverent 
Christian, who undertakes to interpret a Gospel of Christ, so as to show 
Christ in his grandeur and loveliness of character." — The Southern Church- 
man. 

" It is a valuable and welcome addition to our somewhat scanty stock of 
first-class commentaries on the Third Gospel. By its scholarly thoroughness 
it well sustains the reputation which the INTERNATIONAL Series has already 
won." — Prof. J. H. Thayer, of Harvard University. 

This volume having been so recently published^ further notices are not yet 
available. 



"ght Ittternatiotxal ffirittral ©^mmjewtars. 

"For the student this new commentary promises to be indispen- 
sable.'' — The Methodist Recorder. 



ROMANS. 

By the Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., 

.-Uiy Margaxet Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, O.vtord, 

AND THE 

Rev. A. C. HEADLAn, M.A., 

Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford. 



Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 



" From my knowledge of Dr. Sanday, and from a brief examination of the 
book, I am led to believe that it is our best critical handbook to the Epistle. 
It combines great learning with practical and suggestive interpretation." — 
Professor George B. Stevens, of Yale University. 

" Professor Sanday is excellent in scholarship, and of unsurpassed candor. 
The introduction and detached notes are highly interesting and instructive. 
This commentary cannot fail to render the most valuable assistance to all 
earnest students. The volume augurs well for the series of which it is a mem- 
ber." — Professor George P. Fisher, of Yale University. 

"The scholarship and spirit of Dr. Sanday give assurance of an interpreta- 
tion of the Epistle to the Romans which will be both scholarly and spiritual." 
— Dr. Lyman Abbott. 

" The work of the authors has been carefully done, and will prove an 
acceptable addition to the literature of the great Epistle. The exegesis is 
acute and learned . . . The authors show much familiarity with the work 
of their predecessors, and write with calmness and lucidity." — New York 
Observer. 

" We are confident that this commentary will find a place in every thought- 
ful minister's library. One may not be able to agree with the authors at some 
points, — and this is true of all commentaries, — but they have given us a work 
which cannot but prove valuable to the critical study of Paul's masterly epis- 
tle." — Zion's Advocate. 

" We do not hesitate to commend this as the best commentary on Romans 
yet written in English. It will do much to popularize this admirable and 
much needed series, by showing that it is possible to be critical and scholarly 
and at the same time devout and spiritual, and intelligible to plain Bible 
readers." — The Church Standard. 

"A commentary with a very distinct character and purpose of its own, 
which brings to students and ministers an aid which they cannot obtain else- 
where. . . . There is probably no other commentary in which criticism has 
been employed so successfully and impartially to bring out the author's 
thought." — N. Y. Independent. 

" We have nothing but heartiest praise for the weightier matters of the 
commentary. It is not only critical, but exegetical, expository, doctrinal, 
practical, and eminently spiritual. The positive conclusions of the books are 
very numerous and are stoutly, gloriously evangelical. . . . The commentary 
does not fail to speak v/Uh the utmost reverence of the whole word of God." 
The Con^rcpationalisi 



glxje %nUvnvdxonul Critical (£>ommzntm:^. 



**TAis admirable series.''^ — The London Academy. 



EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 

By the Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., D. Litt. 

Formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, now of Hebrew, Trinity College, 

Dublin. 



Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50. 



♦• The latest volume of this admirable series is informed with the very 
best spirit in which such work can be carried out — a spirit of absolute 
fidelity to the demonstrable truths of critical science. . . . This summary 
of the results of modern criticism applied to these two Pauline letters is, 
for the use of scholarly students, not likely to be superseded." — The Lon- 
don Academy. 

" An able and independent piece of exegesis, and one that none of us can 
afford to be without. It is the work of a man who has made himself mas- 
ter of his theme. His linguistic ability is manifest. His style is usually 
clear. His exegetical perceptions are keen, and we are especially grateful 
for his strong defence of the integrity and apostolicity of these two great 
monuments of Pauline teaching." — T/ie ExposHor. 

"It displays every mark of conscientious judgment, wide reading, and 
grammatical insight. " — Literature. 

" In discrimination, learning, and candor, it is the peer of the other vol- 
umes of the series. The elaborate introductions are of special value." — 
Professor George B. Stevens, of Yale University. 

"It is rich in philological material, clearly arranged, and judiciously 
handled. The studies of words are uncommonly good. ... In the 
balancing of opinions, in the distinguishing between fine shades of mean- 
ing, it is both acute and sound." — The Church. 

'■' The exegesis based so solidly on the rock foundation of philology is 
r.rgumentatively and convincingly strong. A spiritual and evangelical tenor 
pervades the interpretation from first to last. . . . These elements, to- 
gether with the author's full-orbed vision of the truth, with his discrimina- 
tive judgment and his felicity of expression, make this the peer of any com- 
mentary on these important letters." — The Standard. 

" An exceedingly careful and painstaking piece of work. The introduc- 
tory discussions of questions bearing on the authenticity and integrity (of 
the epistles) are clear and candid, and the exposition of the text displays a 
fine scholarship and insight." — North^vestern Christian Advocate. 

"The book is from first to last exegetical and critical. Every phrase in 
the two Epistles is searched as with lighted candles. The authorities for 
variant readings are canvassed but weighed, rather than counted. The mul- 
tiform ancient and modern interpretations are investigated with the ex- 
hausiiveness of a German lecture-room, and the judicial spirit of an English 
court-room. Special discussions are numerous and thoroujrh " — The Con* 
jgre^atiou,i/isL 



^e 3ntemationai Ctiticaf Commenfarj. 



*' / have already expressed my conviction that the Inter- 
national C"itical Commentary is the best critical commentary 
on the whole Bible, in existence."— Dr. Lyman Abbott 



Philippians and Philemon 

BY 

REV. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D. 

fhtffessor oj Biblical Literature in Union Theological Setmnary, New York. 



Crown 8vo, Net $2.00. 



**It is, in short, in every way worthy of the series." — The Scotsman. 

" Professor Vincent's Commentary on Philippians and Philemon appears 
to me not less admirable for its literary merit than for its scholarship and its 
clear and discriminating discussions of the contents of these Epistles." — Dr. 
George P. Fisher. 

"The book contains many examples of independent and judicial weigh- 
ing of evidence. We have been delighted with the portion d«ivoted to Phile- 
mon. Unlike most commentaries, this may wisely be read as a whole."— 
The Congregationalist 

"Of the merits of the work it is enough to say that it Is worthy of its 
place in the noble undertaking to which it belongs. It is fuP of just such 
information as the Bible student, lay or clerical, needs ; and while giving an 
abundance of the truths of erudition to aid the critical student of the text, it 
abounds also in that more popular information which enables the attentive 
reader almost to put himselt in St. Paul's place, to see with the eyes and feel 
with the heart of the Apostle to the Gentiles." — Boston Advertiser. 

"If it is possible in these days to produce a commentary which will be 
free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias, the feat will be accomplished in 
the International Critical Commentary. . . . It is evident that the writer 
has given an immense amount of scholarly research and original thought to 
the subject. . . . The author's introduction to the Epistle to Philemon 
is an admirable piece of literature, calculated to arouse in the student's mind 
an intense interest in the circumstances which produced this short letter from 
the inspired Apostle." — Commercial Advertiser. 

" His discussion of Philemon is marked by sympathy and appreciation, 
and his full discussion of the relations of Pauline Christianity to slavery are 
interesting, both historically and sociologically." — The Dial. 

" Throughout the work scholarly research is evident. It commends itself 
by its clear elucidation, its keen exegesis which marks the word study on 
every page, its compactness of statement and its simplicity of armngemant." 
— Lutheran World. 

*' The scholarship of the author seems to be fully equal to his i dertaking, 
and he has given to us a fine piece of work. One cannot but se th?.t if the 
entire series shall be executed upon a par with this portion, thel ?an be lit- 
tle left to be desired." — Philadelphia Presbyterian Journal. 






€U 3ntetnaficnaf Criticdf Commenfam^^ 

c^ J. 
" The best conunentary and the one most useful to the Bible / / 



student is The International Critical" 

—The Reformed Church Revhew. 



.^! 



ST. PETER AND ST. JUDE . i 

By the Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D. 

Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford 



Crown 8vo, Net, $2.50. 

" His commentary is very satisfactory indeed. His notes are particulaily 
valuable. We know of no work on these Epistles which is so full and satis- 
factory." — The Living Church. 

"It shows an immense amount of research and acquaintanceship with the 
views of the critical school," — Herald atid Presbyter. 

"This volume well sustains the reputation achieved by its predecessors. 
The notes to the text, as well as the introductions, are marked by erudition 
at once affluent and discriminating." — The Outlook. 

"Canon Bigg's work is pre-eminently characterized by judicial open- 
mindedness and sympathetic insight into historical conditions. His realistic 
interpretation of the relations of the apostles and the circumstances of the 
early church renders the volume invaluable to students of these themes. 
The exegetical work' In the volume rests on the broad basis of careful lin- 
guistic study, acquaintance with apocalyptic literature and the writings of 
the Fathers, a sane judgment, and good sense." — American Journal cf 
Theology. 

" It must be emphasized that the commentary is a distinct contribution io 
scholarship, that it deserves a place alongside of its New Testament prede- 
cessors in the series, and that it is the best commentary on these epistles in 
English."— 77z^ Biblical World. 

"The careful and thorough student will find here a vast amount of Infor- 
mation most helpful to him in his studies and researches. The Internationa), 
Critical Commentary, to which it belongs, will prove a great boon to stu- 
dents and ministers." — The Canadian Congregationalist. 

"As a study of the Greek text, his commentary stands in the front rank 
of the series to which it belongs. But the most characteristic part of the 
book is the preface and the introductory matter, in which Dr. Bigg's genius 
as a historian finds ample scope " — Literature. 

"We do not hesitate to say that it is, after all. In our judgment, the most 
useful commentary on tht difficult portions of Scripture with which it deals, 
of v/hich we have any knowledge." — Reformed Church Review, 



